I have never once advocated folding to terrorist demands. I have never said that I think we should withdraw from the ME completely. I've never advocated and immediate withdrawl from Iraq (though I did advocate not attacking in the first place). Therefore, how can you possibly state that I think we 'should' do these things?
...
Cycloptichorn
Further proof that you are disconnected from reality, Lash.
What good is it to check bags at only SOME stations? It is NO good. It is a waste of money.
I never, ever advocated 'doing nothing.' You just have no desire to hear what I have to say; that we will not be able to stop suicide terrorism in the States if a significant amount of people decide to engage in it.
Therefore the intelligent thing to do is to try to figure out why people are engaging in terrorism and stop that. Searching bags does nothing.
You don't want real solutions, you want EASY solutions, which in this case doesn't work, and they are more dangerous than doing nothing; they create a false sense of security, and cost money!
Cycloptichorn
Ican,
The message is clear. They want us out of their holy lands and out of their sphere of influence, ie, the Middle East. They are willing to blow a lot of people, including themselves, up, to see this happen.
There is no indication whatsoever, as Lash foolishly claims, that OBL seeks to convert every Christian to Islaam or kill them in the process. None.
Cycloptichorn
Ok then! You think all that need be done to stop the world wide mass murder of civilians by al Qaeda and affiliates, is for the US and its allies to pack up and leave the Middle East.
That is incredibly simple!
Do you think there is any down side to that solution?
Therefore the intelligent thing to do is to try to figure out why people are engaging in terrorism and stop that.
...
...
Ican,
The message is clear. They want us out of their holy lands and out of their sphere of influence, ie, the Middle East. They are willing to blow a lot of people, including themselves, up, to see this happen.
Cycloptichorn
revel wrote:Lash, what are seeing is a difference of opinion in the way to handle things between the left and the right. Bush does everything in an uninformative conservative way so naturally the left is going to object to his way of doing things.
For instance, some people thought it would have been better to have finished one war and actually do it right rather than start to work on going to another war before catching the bad guys-namely Bin Laden.
Some of the bad guys (i.e., malignancy), including bin Laden, fled Afghanistan after we invaded Afghanistan. So some of us thought it would be a good idea to also attack that country with the most murderous government that allowed the malignancy sanctuary.
Then we should have invaded Pakistan.
Some people thought that we did not use all of options in regards to Iraq before going to war.
Some of us thought we waited too dangerously long to invade Iraq.
Some people thought in order to sell the war of Iraq to the American people the administration began a campaign of dishonesty and stretching the truth.
Some of us think the administration, while partially wrong, believed all that they said. Some of us think the administration was right when they said that they believed that our enemy were terrorists and all those who harbored them. Some of us think the administration was wrong when it said Saddam's regime possessed ready-to-use WMD.
It still ends up a put up sales job for the wrong target.
Some people thought when the administration forced this war on us they didn't plan worth a hoot and left our troops under armed and were clueless about what to do after toppling Saddam Hussein.
Some of us think Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq if he thought that necessary. Some of us think the removal of the Saddam regime was planned and executed brilliantly. Some of us think that the restoration of a peaceful Iraq was planned and executed badly.
Duh. What planning? Bush et al believed in the flowers in the street dream. Paying for the war with the oil in less than six months.
Sheesh.
Some people think that everything that has happened in Iraq was the result of poor judgment and planning on the part of the administration.
Some of us think the removal of the Saddam regime was the result of good judgment and planning on the part of the administration, but the failures in the restoration of a peaceful Iraq were the result of poor judgment and planning on the part of the administration. Lack of focus on who the enemy is. This is not a war to be won with troops, but hey, we're in charge we won the election.
Some people think that because of the way the administration tried to deal with the detainees in getting around the GC and other international laws which in the past have been honored has encouraged and given permission for the abuses to take place and then when they were actually carried out and the world was shocked they had made scapegoats out the ones who carried out their wishes.
Some of us think that the GC does not apply to those who do not honor the GC when dealing with people they detain. Some of us think that all we are obligated to do is avoid killing, maiming, and disabling such prisoners.
When I am holding my enemy prisoner, I must live up to my values. When my enemy is holding me prisoner, I must live up to my values.
Some people think when we point that out we are doing our duty as American citizens so that next time we go picking a President we don't fall for gimmicks and slogans but rather well thought out plans and reason.
Some of us think that the last two losing candidates offered nothing more than gimmicks and slogans without any plans or reason. Some of us think the winner did provide plans and reasons some of which were not well thought out.
The American people have been snookered by master con artist Rove. Twice. Can't help them.
When there is nothing the administration does that meet with approval there is nothing to agree about.
Some of us think that when some things meet with approval then there is somethings to agree with and somethings to disagree with.
Just don't voice them in the New York Times or your wife is fair game.
However speaking for me there is one action that the administration has done that I do approve of and that is his actions regarding Israel and Palestine. I also agreed with the Afghanistan war. Otherwise there is nothing either domestically or foreign that I agree with the President about and I can't just fake it to be agreeable.
Some of us agree that such an opinion is a rational opinion even though we disagree with some of it. Some of us also think that there is more to approve of (see above). Some of us think this war the malignancy has declared against us is extremely complicated and difficult to determine what in fact is the best way to deal with it. Some of us think the malignancy constitutes a new and very deadly religion whose evangelicals are particularly persuasive in enlisting the capable, well educated and easily frightened. Some of us think that the best we can do is keep trying different ways to conduct this war until we find a way that works.
Until then we are stuck with a bunch of idelogues who believe both in the Second Coming of Christ and that they are the Second Coming of Christ. Makes me stare out the window at night wondering how long?.............
I'm scheduled to have it all perfectly figured out by next Tuesday, but I'm way, way ...way behind schedule. How about you?![]()
Then we should have invaded Pakistan.
Naaa! Iraq possessed the most murderous governent of the two, Iraq and Pakistan, with a winning score of about 15 Iraqi civilians murdered per day.
When I am holding my enemy prisoner, I must live up to my values. When my enemy is holding me prisoner, I must live up to my values.
My values are to not kill, maim or injure my prisoners, who mass murder civilians and their prisoners, but to do whatever else comes to mind that I think may obtain information leading to saving the lives of civilians.
The American people have been snookered by master con artist Rove. Twice. Can't help them.
Naaa! We, the American people, as well as the master con artists' recruits, were snookered by master con artist Osama bin Laden.
Until then we are stuck with a bunch of idelogues who believe both in the Second Coming of Christ and that they are the Second Coming of Christ. Makes me stare out the window at night wondering how long?
Naaa! All they (i.e., Bush administration) believe is that our enemy are terrorists and those who harbor them, and it would be a good idea to start removing the governments that harbor them in order to limit their recruiting and training and equiping and financing and their safe harbors.
I'm scheduled to have it all perfectly figured out by next Tuesday, but I'm way, way ...way behind schedule. How about you?![]()
My motto: Live and let live, but exterminate those who would die and make die.
Love yuh
Joe Nation
Is there anything in the holy Muslim texts, or in generally accepted Muslim morality, or in generally accepted Muslim ethics, or in national law, or in international law that prohibits non-Muslims from residing or building bases in the Middle East, and requires non-Muslims to be removed from the Middle East by Muslims, or incarcerated by Muslims, or executed by Muslims? If not, then perhaps we can stop that (i.e., engaging in terrorism) by simply talking to them respectfully and pointing this out!
Cycloptichorn, what do you think?
Quote:Is there's anything in the holy Muslim texts, or in generally accepted Muslim morality, or in generally accepted Muslim ethics, or in national law, or in international law that prohibits non-Muslims from residing or building bases in the Middle East, and requires non-Muslims to be removed from the Middle East by Muslims, or incarcerated by Muslims, or executed by Muslims? If not, then perhaps we can stop that (i.e., engaging in terrorism) by simply talking to them respectfully and pointing this out!
Cycloptichorn, what do you think?
Perhaps the things you say represent one step of solving the problem.
I do believe you've hit on an important aspect of the problem: you have to Give respect, to Get respect. I'm not familiary with every aspect of Sharia or Muslim secular law; I know they get touchy about their holy sites (looking at you Tancredo) but that's about it.
Not just the govt's, either; if you can't respect the people of the middle east, then you can't expect them to respect you.
Not a bad question! It will take much more than military force to end this conflict....
Cycloptichorn
...
one major difference you might want to look at is Usury laws. ... they don't permit interest in the way that we do.
Cycloptichorn
And Then They Came After Us We’re at war. How about acting like it?
Victor Davis Hanson - National Review on Line July 22, 2005, 8:16 a.m.
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/hanson/hanson200507220816.asp
First the terrorists of the Middle East went after the Israelis. From 1967 we witnessed 40 years of bombers, child murdering, airline hijacking, suicide murdering, and gratuitous shooting. We in the West usually cried crocodile tears, and then came up with all sorts of reasons to allow such Middle Eastern killers a pass.
Yasser Arafat, replete with holster and rants at the U.N., had become a “moderate” and was thus free to steal millions of his good-behavior money. If Hamas got European cash, it would become reasonable, ostracize its “military wing,” and cease its lynching and vigilantism.
When some tried to explain that Wars 1-3 (1947, 1956, 1967) had nothing to do with the West Bank, such bothersome details fell on deaf ears.
When it was pointed out that Germans were not blowing up Poles to get back lost parts of East Prussia nor were Tibetans sending suicide bombers into Chinese cities to recover their country, such analogies were caricatured.
When the call for a “Right of Return” was making the rounds, few cared to listen that over a half-million forgotten Jews had been cleansed from Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, and lost billions in property.
When the U.N. and the EU talked about “refugee camps,” none asked why for a half-century the Arab world could not build decent housing for its victimized brethren, or why 1 million Arabs voted in Israel, but not one freely in any Arab country.
The security fence became “The Wall,” and evoked slurs that it was analogous to barriers in Korea or Berlin that more often kept people in than out. Few wondered why Arabs who wished to destroy Israel would mind not being able to live or visit Israel.
In any case, anti-Semitism, oil, fear of terrorism — all that and more fooled us into believing that Israel’s problems were confined to Israel. So we ended up with a utopian Europe favoring a pre-modern, terrorist-run, Palestinian thugocracy over the liberal democracy in Israel. The Jews, it was thought, stirred up a hornet’s nest, and so let them get stung on their own.
We in the United States preened that we were the “honest broker.” After the Camp David accords we tried to be an intermediary to both sides, ignoring that one party had created a liberal and democratic society, while the other remained under the thrall of a tribal gang.
Billions of dollars poured into frontline states like Jordan and Egypt. Arafat himself got tens of millions, though none of it ever seemed to show up in good housing, roads, or power plants for his people. The terror continued, enhanced rather than arrested, by Western largess and Israeli concessions.
Then the Islamists declared war on the United States. A quarter century of mass murdering of Americans followed in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, East Africa, the first effort to topple the World Trade Center, and the attack on the USS Cole.
We gave billions to Jordan, the Palestinians, and the Egyptians. Afghanistan was saved from the Soviets through U.S. aid. Kuwait was restored after Saddam’s annexation, and the holocaust of Bosnians and Kosovars halted by the American Air Force. Americans welcomed thousands of Arabs to our shores and allowed hundreds of madrassas and mosques to preach zealotry, anti-Semitism, and jihad without much scrutiny.
Then came September 11 and the almost instant canonization of bin Laden.
Suddenly, the prior cheap shots at Israel under siege weren’t so cheap. It proved easy to castigate Israelis who went into Jenin, but not so when we needed to do the same in Fallujah.
It was easy to slander the Israelis’ scrutiny of Arabs in their midst, but then suddenly a few residents in our own country were found to be engaging in bomb making, taking up jihadist pilgrimages to Afghanistan, and mapping out terrorist operations.
Apparently, the hatred of radical Islam was not just predicated on the “occupation” of the West Bank. Instead it involved the pretexts of Americans protecting Saudi Arabia from another Iraqi attack, the United Nations boycott of Iraq, the removal of the Taliban and Saddam, and always as well as the Crusades and the Reconquista.
But Europe was supposedly different. Unlike the United States, it was correct on the Middle East, and disarmed after the Cold War. Indeed, the European Union was pacifistic, socialist, and guilt-ridden about former colonialism.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were left alone in unassimilated European ghettoes and allowed to preach or promulgate any particular hatred of the day they wished. Conspire to kill a Salmon Rushdie, talk of liquidating the “apes and pigs,” distribute Mein Kampf and the Protocols, or plot in the cities of France and Germany to blow up the Pentagon and the World Trade Center — all that was about things “over there” and in a strange way was thought to ensure that Europe got a pass at home.
But the trump card was always triangulation against the United States. Most recently anti-Americanism was good street theater in Rome, Paris, London, and the capitals of the “good” West.
But then came Madrid — and the disturbing fact that after the shameful appeasement of its withdrawal from Iraq, further plots were hatched against Spanish justices and passenger trains.
Surely a Holland would be exempt — Holland of wide-open Amsterdam fame where anything goes and Muslim radicals could hate in peace. Then came the butchering of Theo Van Gogh and the death threats against parliamentarian Hirsi Ali — and always defiance and promises of more to come rather than apologies for their hatred.
Yet was not Britain different? After all, its capital was dubbed Londonistan for its hospitality to Muslims across the globe. Radical imams openly preached jihad against the United States to their flock as thanks for being given generous welfare subsidies from her majesty’s government. But it was the United States, not liberal Britain, that evoked such understandable hatred.
But now?
After Holland, Madrid, and London, European operatives go to Israel not to harangue Jews about the West Bank, but to receive tips about preventing suicide bombings. And the cowboy Patriot Act to now-panicked European parliaments perhaps seems not so illiberal after all.
So it is was becoming clear that butchery by radical Muslims in Bali, Darfur, Iraq, the Philippines Thailand, Turkey, Tunisia, and Iraq was not so tied to particular and “understandable” Islamic grievances.
Perhaps the jihadist killing was not over the West Bank or U.S. hegemony after all, but rather symptoms of a global pathology of young male Islamic radicals blaming all others for their own self-inflicted miseries, convinced that attacks on the infidel would win political concessions, restore pride, and prove to Israelis, Europeans, Americans — and about everybody else on the globe — that Middle Eastern warriors were full of confidence and pride after all.
Meanwhile an odd thing happened. It turns out that the jihadists were cowards and bullies, and thus selective in their targets of hatred. A billion Chinese were left alone by radical Islam — even though the Chinese were secularists and mostly godless, as well as ruthless to their own Uighur Muslim minorities. Had bin Laden issued a fatwa against Beijing and slammed an airliner into a skyscraper in Shanghai, there is no telling what a nuclear China might have done.
India too got mostly a pass, other than the occasional murdering by Pakistani zealots. Yet India makes no effort to apologize to Muslims. When extremists occasionally riot and kill, they usually cease quickly before the response of a much more unpredictable angry populace.
What can we learn from all this?
Jihadists hardly target particular countries for their “unfair” foreign policies, since nations on five continents suffer jihadist attacks and thus all apparently must embrace an unfair foreign policy of some sort.
Typical after the London bombing is the ubiquitous Muslim spokesman who when asked to condemn terrorism, starts out by deploring such killing, assuring that it has nothing to do with Islam, yet then ending by inserting the infamous “but” — as he closes with references about the West Bank, Israel, and all sorts of mitigating factors. Almost no secular Middle Easterners or religious officials write or state flatly, “Islamic terrorism is murder, pure and simple evil. End of story, no ifs or buts about it.”
Second, thinking that the jihadists will target only Israel eventually leads to emboldened attacks on the United States. Assuming America is the only target assures terrorism against Europe. Civilizations will either hang separately or triumph over barbarism together. It is that simple — and past time for Europe and the United States to rediscover their common heritage and shared aims in eradicating this plague of Islamic fascism.
Third, Islamicists are selective in their attacks and hatred. So far global jihad avoids two billion Indians and Chinese, despite the fact that their countries are far tougher on Muslims than is the United States or Europe. In other words, the Islamicists target those whom they think they can intimidate and blackmail.
Unfettered immigration, billions in cash grants to Arab autocracies, alliances of convenience with dictatorships, triangulation with Middle Eastern patrons of terror, blaming the Jews — civilization has tried all that.
It is time to relearn the lessons from the Cold War, when we saw millions of noble Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, and Czechs as enslaved under autocracy and a hateful ideology, and in need of democracy before they could confront the Communist terror in their midst.
But until the Wall fell, we did not send billions in aid to their Eastern European dictatorships nor travel freely to Prague or Warsaw nor admit millions of Communist-ruled Bulgarians and Albanians onto our shores.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.
'Confession' lifts lid on London bomb plot
...
"Osman claimed the July 21 bombers watched videos of British and American troops "killing women and children" in Iraq before embarking on their mission."
...
"Muktar, our leader, told us that he had material to show us, but that we should be careful and not tell anyone about it," he was quoted as saying.
"Muktar always had new films on the war in Iraq. He showed us especially those in which you saw women and children killed and exterminated by the English and American soldiers, or widows, mothers and daughters who were crying."
...
Responding to Marina Ottaway on Negotiating with Insurgents in Iraq
This letter appeared in the July 25, 2005 Financial Times.
From Dr. Michael Rubin
Sir,
Marina Ottaway argues that to stabilise Iraq, the US should negotiate with the insurgents (“Iraq calls for a policy of unhurried negotiation”, Ft.com, July 19). Rather than a recipe for peace, what Ms. Ottaway proposes is a prescription for war.
In April 2004, the Coalition lifted its siege of Fallujah and empowered an insurgent brigade to police the city. Car bombings increased 600 percent in the month that followed, necessitating an even bloodier siege. Efforts to re-incorporate former Baath party elements can be correlated to insurgent violence not only in Baghdad, but also in Mosul, where General David Petraeus, against Iraqi advice, embraced former regime officials and Islamists.
In the run-up to the January elections, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds said they would vote against Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi not because they disagreed with his secular vision, but because his embrace of former Baathists undercut their security. When word of negotiations between US forces and Iraqi insurgents leaked last month, the pan-Arabic broadsheet Ash-Sharq al-Awsat ran a cartoon suggesting Uncle Sam was weak, not magnanimous.
Regardless, it is not the Coalition’s place to negotiate with insurgents. To do so undercuts the authority and sovereignty of a freely-elected Iraqi government. In Iraq, rewarding terror brings one result: More terror.
Michael Rubin,
Resident Scholar,
American Enterprise Institute
Washington, DC 20036, US
Terrorism – It’s Not “What We Do”
By Lawrence J. Haas
As surely as night follows day, terrorist bombings against U.S. interests invariably rekindle a debate in national security circles over the vexing, post-9/11 question: "Why do they hate us?"
One side says it's because of "who we are" – the values we hold, the freedom and democracy we practice. The other side says it's because of "what we do" – the foreign policies we promote, which includes our active engagement in far-flung places generally and our support for Israel, in particular.
With apologies to Shakespeare, I write here today to bury this debate, not to praise it. For the time has come to stop pretending that the fault lies with us, that a change in our foreign policy will bring the terror to an end, that we must alter our ways to assuage our enemies.
"Why do they hate us"? Listen to what the terrorists and their sympathizers say, watch what they do, look at where they lash out – and the answer should be obvious: They hate us for "who we are," not "what we do." The hate us for being non-Islamic "infidels," for believing that freedom trumps servility, for trusting people to rule themselves, for tolerating a diversity of views and mores. The "what we do" crowd is not just wrong, they’re dangerous – which is why we should bring this intellectual sparring match to an end as quickly as possible.
How is the "what we do" crowd wrong? Let me count the ways.
First, look where the terrorists are going – to places where the link to U.S. foreign policy is tenuous at best. The bombs went off in Sharm el-Sheikh even though Egypt has no role in the U.S. effort in Iraq, which is supposedly the current raison d'etre for anti-American violence. That the victims included not just Americans and British but Egyptians, Russians, Dutch, Kuwaitis, Saudis, and Qataris made the violence seems even less directed at our policies.
Even when the terrorists hit Iraq, their targets are not necessarily Americans. How does the "what we do" crowd explain the July 13 suicide bomber who rammed his SUV into a crowd of children who were getting candy from American troops, killing 27 people, many of them kids? Or a similar incident last year that left more than 30 children dead?
As Mona Eltahawy, the Egyptian-born commentator, wrote recently in Asharq Alawsat, an Arabic international daily, "It is time to declare once and for all the absurdity of the 'George Bush made me do it' excuse that is dragged out every time Muslims carry out a terrorist attack." Or, as Iranian commentator Amir Taheri wrote in the London Times, "... [Y]ou are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you."
Second, listen to what the terrorists are saying. Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-Morroccan who brutally murder Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street in late 2004 for criticizing Islam, told van Gogh’s mother after his conviction: "I have to admit I do not feel for you, I do not feel your pain... I cannot feel for you ... because I believe you are an infidel... I acted out of conviction – not because I hated your son."
Consider, also, what a would-be suicide bomber from Hamas told the London Times about being chosen for martyrdom: "It's as if a very high, impenetrable wall separated you from Paradise or Hell," he said. "Allah has promised one or the other to his creatures. So, by pressing the detonator, you can immediately open the door to Paradise — it is the shortest path to Heaven."
Murders of infidels, suicides to reach paradise – these are hardly the results of a sober analysis of U.S. foreign policy. Nor would these misguided young men be dissuaded from their missions of death by a change in our foreign policy, which leads to the next question:
How is the "what we do" crowd dangerous? Here, again, let me count the ways.
A focus on "what we do" shifts the terms of debate. No longer is the focus on dastardly deeds, where it should stay. Instead, it turns to what’s happening in the White House and Congress, in European capitals, and in other places where leaders of the civilized world gather and make decisions.
I ascribe no ill motives to the "what we do" crowd. But to explain terrorism through the prism of our foreign policy is, at some level, to tolerate terrorism. It is to set our actions against a supposed reaction from abroad, as if plotting each along a spectrum of rational international tactics. We support Israel – plot it here; they kill 3,000 innocent people on 9/11, plot it there.
The problem for civilized people is, terrorism is neither rational nor acceptable. And, however inadvertently, we should not engage in intellectual discussions that seem to treat it as such. That is, we should not burden ourselves with the task of finding the errors of our ways to explain terrorism. Indeed, we should send a clear message to the terrorists that we steadfastly refuse to entertain a discussion of what we did wrong. For nothing we have done justifies what they do.
We're not perfect – far from it. But, to state the obvious, we’re not terrorists. And we should not give terrorists an intellectual club to use against us by seeking an explanation for them in our foreign policy.
Middle East Times <http://www.metimes.com/>
Opinion: The Muslim mind is on fire <http://172.16.4.179/articles/normal.php?storyid=20050726-073844-6818r>
By Youssef M. Ibrahim
Middle East Times
Published July 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world of Islam is on fire. Indeed, the Muslim mind is on fire. Above all, the West is now ready to take both of them on.
The latest reliable report confirms that on average 33 Iraqis die every day, executed by Iraqis and foreign jihadis and suicide bombers, not by US or British soldiers. In fact, fewer than ever US or British soldiers are dying since the invasion more than two years ago. Instead, we now watch on television hundreds of innocent Iraqis lying without limbs, bleeding in the streets dead or wounded for life. If this is jihad someone got his religious education completely upside down.
Palestine is on fire, too, with Palestinian armed groups fighting one another - Hamas against Fatah and all against the Palestinian Authority. All have rendered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas impotent and have diminished the world's respect and sympathy for Palestinian sufferings.
A couple of weeks ago London was on fire as Pakistani and other Muslims with British citizenship blew up tube stations in the name of Islam. Al Qaeda in Europe or one of its franchises proclaimed proudly the killing of 54 and wounding 700 innocent citizens was done to "avenge Islam" and Muslims.
Madrid was on fire, too, last year, when Muslim jihadis blew up train stations killing 160 people and wounding a few thousands.
The excuse in all the above cases was the war in Iraq, but let us not forget that in September 2001, long before Iraq, Osama Bin Laden proudly announced that he ordered the killing of some 3,000 in the United States, in the name of avenging Islam. Let us not forget that the killing began a long time before the invasion of Iraq.
Indeed, jihadis have been killing for a decade in the name of Islam. They killed innocent tourists and natives in Morocco and Egypt, in Africa, in Indonesia and in Yemen, all done in the name of Islam by Muslims who say that they are better than all other Muslims. They killed in India, in Thailand and are now talking of killing in Germany and Denmark and so on. There were attacks with bombs that killed scores inside Shia and Sunni mosques, inside churches and inside synagogues in Turkey and Tunisia, with Muslim preachers saying that it is okay to kill Jews and Christians - the so called infidels.
Above all, it is the Muslim mind that is on fire.
The Muslim fundamentalist who attacked the Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, stabbed him more than 23 times then cut his throat. He recently proudly proclaimed at his trial: "I did it because my religion - Islam - dictated it and I would do it again if were free." Which preacher told this guy this is Islam? That preacher should be in jail with him.
Do the cowardly jihadis who recruit suicide bombers really think that they will force the US Army and British troops out of Iraq by killing hundreds of innocent Iraqis? US troops now have bases and operate in Iraq but also from Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman.
The only accomplishment of jihadis is that now they have aroused the great "Western Tiger". There was a time when the United States and Europe welcomed Arab and Muslim immigrants, visitors and students, with open arms. London even allowed all dissidents escaping their countries to preach against those countries under the guise of political refugees.
Well, that is all over now. Time has become for the big Western vengeance.
Visas for Arab and Muslim young men will be impossible to get for the United States and Western Europe. Those working there will be expelled if they are illegal, and harassed even if their papers are in order.
Airlines will have to right to refuse boarding to passengers if their names even resemble names on a prohibited list on all flights heading to Europe and the United States.
What is more important to remember is this: When the West did unite after World War II to beat communism, the long Cold War began without pity. They took no prisoners. They all stood together, from the United States to Norway, from Britain to Spain, from Belgium to Switzerland. And they did bring down the biggest empire. Communism collapsed.
I fear those naïve Muslims who think that they are beating the West have now achieved their worst crime of all. The West is now going to war against not only Muslims, but also, sadly, Islam as a religion.
In this new cold and hot war, car bombs and suicide bombers here and there will be no match for the arsenal that those Westerners are putting together - an arsenal of laws, intelligence pooling, surveillance by satellites, armies of special forces and indeed, allies inside the Arab world who are tired of having their lives disrupted by demented so-called jihadis or those bearded preachers who, under the guise of preaching, do little to teach and much to ignite the fire, those who know little about Islam and nothing about humanity.
Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for The New York Times and energy editor of the Wall Street Journal, is managing director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group
Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
One side says it's because of "who we are" - the values we hold, the freedom and democracy we practice. The other side says it's because of "what we do" - the foreign policies we promote, which includes our active engagement in far-flung places generally and our support for Israel, in particular.
Quote:One side says it's because of "who we are" – the values we hold, the freedom and democracy we practice. The other side says it's because of "what we do" – the foreign policies we promote, which includes our active engagement in far-flung places generally and our support for Israel, in particular.
Who are these sides? I think Mr. Hass had a deadline and he dashed off a fairly tightly written, completely inconsequential, blurb.