In the words of our Enemies AND British Jihad attacks nothing to do with Islam

Babbin: 'In the Words of Our Enemies'
by David Limbaugh (More by this author)

Almost as upsetting as the fact that the United States is engaged in a long-term global war against radical Islamists is that a shocking percentage of people seem predisposed against grasping it.

To the perennially oblivious, we are in a war of choice in Iraq, which, among other "elective" actions, is stoking extremism and provoking retaliatory action against us. If we will just cease and desist these actions and otherwise alter those policies giving rise to grievances among radical Muslims, their rage will subside and they'll quit targeting us for extinction.

Those afflicted with this line of thinking not only believe it is our actions and policies that cause terrorists to hate us, but that many of those actions and policies are indeed objectionable.

That is, many of those who think global jihadists can be pacified uncoincidentally also believe they have legitimate complaints against the United States.

To these critics, America is not a shining city on a hill, not a beacon of freedom, not an exemplar of civil liberties, but, under the evil Bush administration at least, a nation that intermeddles in other nations' civil wars and ethnic disputes, systematically abuses and tortures enemy prisoners, spies on its own innocent citizens, runs roughshod over other nations in dictating its will on the international stage and is inhospitable to illegal immigrants.

The critics are projecting their own complaints about the United States on to the jihadists and choosing to believe, despite the overwhelming weight of the evidence and all common sense, that our enemy can be mollified if we'll just quit being a greedy, imperialistic superpower that seeks to impose its will and values on other peoples and exploit their resources.

Of course, these blame-America-firsters are wrong on their complaints against this country. But they are just as wrong about the appeasability of Muslim terrorists.

The terrorists don't just hate us for certain policies we pursue, such as our "occupation" of Saudi Arabia, our alliance with Israel or our stubborn refusal to withdraw from Iraq's "civil war." They hate us because of who we are and what we represent. We could adopt every America-denigrating policy our domestic critics recommend and we'd not make a dent in the enemy's hatred for us.

We can't afford to perpetuate this self-destructive denial of the threat that is right in front of our faces. Our national survival depends on our awareness that short of our national conversion to radical Islam, we are destined for a long-term war against the jihadists.

There is no surer evidence of our enemies' unquenchable malice against us than their own words, which reveal their thinking and sinister intentions. And I've seen no better single, readable source for this than Jed Babbin's alarming new book, In the Words of Our Enemies.

Based on extensive research, Babbin gives us transcripts of speeches, sermons, interviews and other candid statements delivered by terrorist leaders and the radical sheiks who fan the flames of anti-Western hatred in their mosques. You cannot read them and remain unaware that our enemies are irreversibly implacable and increasing in numbers and resolve.

The radicals believe they have a sacred duty to submit the world to Islamic theocracy, that "it is impossible to make peace with the Jews" and that Muslims "must not enter into a pact with them." "Jihad against them is our worship." "Educating children to Jihad and hatred of the Jews, the Christians, and the infidels … This is what is needed now." They are convinced Islam is invincible, and they will not negotiate with infidels. The West, by its very nature, is an enemy of Islam. There can be no coexistence.

They believe the way we live and project our values around the world, including our respect for and equal treatment of women, constitutes an unappeasable threat to Islam.

America's intractable domestic critics who believe we can mollify the Osamas by withdrawing from Iraq, ending our presence in Saudi Arabia and badmouthing Israel, should read portions from the Al Qaeda manual beginning on page 60 of Babbin's book:

"The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun."

Every other sermon, speech and screed in this book is equally chilling. Purchasing and reading it is one of the best antidotes I can imagine for the ignorance and apathy that could lead to our national suicide.



---------------------------------------


British jihad attacks: nothing to do with Islam?by Robert Spencer

In the wake of the two bomb-rigged cars discovered in London and the flaming jeep that crashed into a Glasgow airport terminal, the terror threat level in Britain has been raised to critical. Authorities declined to consider the implications of evidence that the events in London and Glasgow were motivated by the ideology of Islamic jihad. Daud Abdullah, the Deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), declared that the plots “can be the work of Muslims, Christians, Jews or Buddhists.” The new British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, appeared to agree, saying that new efforts had to be undertaken to win the “hearts and minds” of Muslims. “We have got to separate,” he added, “those great moderate members of our community from a few extremists who wish to practice violence and inflict maximum loss of life in the interests of a perversion of their religion.”

Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain, meanwhile, expressed exasperation at the fact that non-Muslims expected Muslims to be active in opposing terror activities within the Islamic community: “We are seething with anger about this,” he said – that is, about the idea that jihad plots should be seen as a challenge to the larger Islamic community to do more against terrorism, not about the jihad plots themselves. “As a community,” he said, “not only are we just as likely to be victims as anyone else, but we are also looked to in order to provide direction and in some respects take responsibility for this. We are sick of being defined as a community by terrorism and having to answer for it.”

Saeed’s anger was ironic in light of Brown’ statement. As the plots continued to be investigated over the weekend, no British officials were saying anything at all about the need for Muslims in Britain to redouble their efforts to teach against the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism, to formulate new understandings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, rejecting the literal and mainstream legal interpretations of a large number of passages, to renounce any intention to impose Sharia in Britain at any time in the future, and to work much more closely with British authorities in order to root out jihadists from their ranks. In Britain, only the ex-jihadist Hassan Butt spoke more realistically about what needs to be done: “It isn’t enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day.”

The official silence about the Islamic element of the attacks was all the more curious in light of the revelation that British authorities were deeply concerned by the fact that the London and Glasgow plotters had no clear or readily discernable ties to terror groups: they were “off the radar.” One remarked: “If there is no trace then this means the terrorism situation in the UK is much worse than we have believed.” Indeed it is, because no Muslim group in the United Kingdom or elsewhere has drawn a distinction between themselves and the jihadists that is sufficiently sharp to prevent those jihadists from moving freely among the peaceful Muslims. They have not expelled jihadists from mosques, and they have not instituted comprehensive, compulsory programs to teach against the jihad ideology. And it is entirely possible for a peaceful Muslim to turn into a jihadist under the noses of authorities -- as Mike Hawash and others have done in the U.S.

Until the British authorities are willing to face the fact that the plotters couldn’t just as well have been Buddhists, but rather arise from the Islamic community and base their actions upon Islamic principles, they will not be dealing with the root of this problem realistically, and we are going to see many more attacks. Butt stressed that Muslims and non-Muslims must “start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism.” Do Gordon Brown and the rest have the courage to do this?