Posted on 06/05/2006 5:37:28 PM PDT by Sabramerican
Our World: The path to our destruction Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 5, 2006
Allegedly spurred on by images of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, and angered by what they saw as the mistreatment of Muslims at home, they became increasingly aggressive in their beliefs, according to media reports.
This is how London's Sunday Telegraph explained the decision of 17 Canadian Muslims to stockpile three tons of ammonium nitrate and plot acts of war against their country.
These men - all Muslims - who reportedly planned to blow up the headquarters of Canada's Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in Toronto, are what Canadian officials refer to as "home-grown terrorists," and products of the "jihad generation." Before their arrests on Friday, they had never visited Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or the Palestinian Authority. They chose the path of jihad in the streets and mosques of Toronto. They learned how to build bombs from the Internet. They trained for their mission in a training camp in Ontario.
Like the Telegraph, most media reports claim that these men were prompted to wage a war against their country because they believe that their fellow Canadians are launching war against Islam. But why would they think this?
Canadians are outspoken in their anti-Americanism. They have contributed generously to the Palestinians. It only took the Canadian government a few weeks after the Palestinian elections to announce it would fund a Hamas-led PA. Canadians overwhelmingly oppose the US-led war in Iraq and President George W. Bush.
A Canadian Muslim friend who lives in Ontario told me recently that he has been unwelcome in his local mosque since the September 11 attacks on Washington and New York. His fellow Muslims have blackballed him because he made public statements critical of the hijackers and of al Qaida and the Palestinians and supportive of the US and Israel. He informed me that while in absolute numbers, mosque attendance in Canada has dropped since Sept. 11, those who continue to attend are fervent in their devotion to jihad against the Western world.
That is, the Muslims who have been forced from the organized Canadian Muslim community are those who believe in Muslim integration in the West while those who remain within that community are radical separatists who cannot abide their pro-Western Muslim brethren.
My friend and his fellow pro-Western Muslims are doubly ostracized. Not only are they rejected by their fellow Muslims who decry their denunciations of jihad, they are also rejected by the intellectual and cultural elites in their countries who insist on apologizing for jihadists in the name of multiculturalism and anti-racism. The depth of my friend's isolation was made clear this weekend when, in the wake of the arrests of the Canadian jihad cell, Luc Portelance, the CSIS assistant director of operations told his countrymen, "It is important to know that this operation in no way reflects negatively on any specific community, or ethno-cultural group in Canada."
FOR ITS part, the Canadian Islamic Congress (whose leader, Mohamed Elmasry has openly stated his view that all Israeli citizens are legitimate targets for terrorist murder), attacked Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper for what it referred to as his decision to "paint today's arrests as a battle between 'us' and 'them.'" The CIC alleged that "Such statements put all Canadian Muslims in great danger," and demanded that the Canadian government fund "legitimate academic research to diagnose this serious social problem [of Canadian Muslims waging war against their country] and provide scientific solutions to it."
Justifications for the actions of Western born and raised jihadists - and indeed for all jihadists from Osama bin Laden down - like that published by the Telegraph are of course par for the course. As author Bruce Bower exhaustively demonstrates in his book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, there exists a unity of purpose between Islamic extremists and Western elites in Europe and throughout the world. Both sides wish to hide the fact that Islamists seek to dominate the Western world while painting the US and Israel as the greatest threats to international security.
There seems to be no limit to the willingness of Western elites to justify jihadist acts of war against their societies. The Telegraph's apology for the Canadian jihadist terror group came at the same time as Britain's counter-terror forces were conducting a desperate search for a chemical bomb they fear was built by two British born terrorists who were also arrested on Friday in London. The fact that Britain's own jihadists were planning to attack Londoners with sarin gas made no dent in the Telegraph's willingness to make excuses for radical Islamic warriors.
THIS PATTERN of collaborative dissimulation between leftist Western elites and jihadists manifested itself last week in Winnipeg, Canada. There, as the Ontario 17 steadily advanced their plans of war, Muslims in Manitoba launched an attack against a film that exposes the nature of the global jihad against the West. Last Monday and Tuesday the documentary film Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West launched its Canadian premiere in the city. (It will be premiering in Israel at Hebrew University on June 14.)
Obsession, was produced by the media watch group Honest Reporting. It effectively shows the depth of the hatred and indoctrination to jihad that is taking place worldwide. Interweaving clips from Arab television, recordings of mosque incitement, interviews with extraordinarily brave Muslim heroes like The Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh and renowned historians such as Sir Martin Gilbert, Professor Robert Wistrich, and Daniel Pipes, the film seeks to fill the void left by the Western media and academia to alert regular citizens to the reality of the threat that jihadist ideology presents to their freedom.
In light of the film's purpose, (and having participated in the project and viewed the film several times, I can attest to its success), it is not surprising that the Muslim community in Winnipeg sought to have it banned. It is also not surprising that in reporting the protest, the Winnipeg Sun used the misleading headline, "Aspers sponsor hate film, say critics."
Ahead of last week's screenings, members of the Winnipeg Muslim community filed a complaint about it with the city police's hate crimes unit. Shahina Siddiqui, the president of the Islamic Social Services Associations told the press, "I want the police to identify this as hate propaganda. I want them to be aware who the sponsors are and what they are doing."
SO FOUR days before Friday's arrests, the Canadian Muslim community attempted to prevent Canadians from watching a film that explains why it is that Canadian born Muslims are trying to destroy their country. And four days before the arrests were made, the Winnipeg Sun maintained faith with its colleagues throughout the Western world by running a headline that gave its readers the sense that there was some legitimacy to the Muslims' complaint.
And even though the apparent ringleader of the terror cell served as a prayer leader and a member of the board of directors of his local mosque, in the wake of Friday's arrests, Canadian and other Western commentators and editors continued to argue that the arrested terrorists bore no relationship to the larger Canadian Muslim community.
It is against the backdrop of the refusal of Western elites to acknowledge the fact that there is a global jihad that the true danger of radical Islam becomes clear. Many argue that the forces of global jihad are no match for their enemies because they lack regular armies.
Yet because of the defiant, irrational and immoral refusal of Western political, cultural and media elites to acknowledge the threat that internal and external jihadist forces manifest to the very notion of human freedom, they make it impossible for their societies to take measures to protect themselves.
can we kill the muzzies yet?
Sure I suggest you start with Sajjad H. Rizvi (Lance Cpl USMC). You might want to bring your big boy pads...and a lunch.
Shiite Muslim Marine fights the war on terrorism with Company L, 3/25
Marine Corps News ^ | Sep 20, 2005 | Cpl. Ken Melton
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1488432/posts
You've got a good point.
I now believe we should have called off WWII, against the Japanese, because of Daniel K. Inouye and his comrades.
Apples & Oranges.
My initial response was ? ,but after further review...
If you say so.
On the other hand was there a single incident when a Japanese American GI turned his weapon of fellow Americans? Threw a granade into a tent full of Americans?
Come on, its jealousy, the French got it, so we have to have it too.
What irks me beyond believe though, is an attitude of a huge part of the West that denies that this struggle even exists (as so well worded by Caroline Glick in this article), or if acknowledges its presence, blames it on Joooos, Bush, Halliburton, America or [fill in any other "nefarious" entity of your choice]. This denial does not make them any safer (as events in Canada, England, France and Spain show), obstructs efforts of those who do act, and sends dubious message to those Muslims who would not want to support Jihad, that maybe the Jihadists are the strong horse, so they should be afraid to help us, just in case... Lenin said the Bourgeoisie will sell the rope to hang it on; these useful idiots give it away for free.
You're right. I'm sure there are millions of very decent people who are Moslems.
They were born Moslesm, so they're Moslem. But their aims in life is a pursuit of happiness and not jihad. And do the exceptions, excuse the rest? And how do we know who's who? Any huge Islamic demonstrations anywhere on Earth against the Jihadists? Why is the pro-Jihadist Islamic media so popular?
Do you know what was the first act of violence when Arafat ordered a war after returning from the failed Camp David summit with Clinton and Barak?
As part of OSLO, there were join Israeli-"Palestinian" security patrols. The very first act of violence was in one of those security patrol jeeps. The "Palestinian" suddenly turned and shot his Israeli "partner" to death.
Oh well. They wouldn't want me as Sec State anyway.
What's so surprising? The elites did the same kind of dissimulation re Stalin and the Soviets.
I went to college in London with lots of kids from the middle east. Many were of Palestinian extraction, residing in countries like Jordan, the UAE, and Kuwait.
I would have said all along that their intentions toward me and toward my culture were tolerant and considerate.
But I have heard nothing from them since September 11. Not a damned thing. No condemnation, not a reference, not anything.
And so I have begun wondering what they really think.
Schooling was a long time ago, of course, and we were young adults.
Still, I take their silence as tolerance for terrorism. I am appalled by their silence, and starting to buy into the notion that our differences cannot be reconciled.
Why don't you contact a few you considered friends. Just ask what they think of the World situation. A nuclear Iran? Iraq? Israel giving them Gaza?
The response of British educated Arabs that- you considered good guys- would be of interest to many here.
They were born Moslesm, so they're Moslem. But their aims in life is a pursuit of happiness and not jihad. And do the exceptions, excuse the rest? And how do we know who's who? Any huge Islamic demonstrations anywhere on Earth against the Jihadists? Why is the pro-Jihadist Islamic media so popular?
I don't have any disagreement to anything you said in this post. But this whole question is what was bothering me for quite a while: And how do we know who's who? That's the million dollar question, isn't it? So, please, forgive my additional musing on the theme.
The guys who don't want to kill us - are they doing it because they are good Muslims or because they are bad Muslims? And the guys who claim authority of Quran in order to kill us - are they distorting and misinterpreting Quran? Or both peaceful and jihadist type of Muslims are correct in their interpretations? How can it be reconciled then?
What is clear to me that I don't want to answer these questions, but I want Muslims to answer them.
From my point of view there is only one acceptable answer: against Jihadists. Whatever peaceful Muslims need to destroy the Jihadists, we must help them. Whatever reformation of Islam needed for that or not, its totally up to them. I care only about the outcome. Until then it is a disservice to the truth to call Islam a "religion of peace".
In the mean time its counterproductive and not serious to call a billion plus people as enemies or shout "kill them all" as some people on our side do. It is also stupid to ignore that the problem even exists - like our own fifth column insists - because only our unwavering insistence can convince Muslims to re-examine who is the bad Muslim is. Ignoring the problem only strengthen those for whom Jihadist is a good Muslim.
And when a good Muslim is a Jihadist, then the only outcome of our confrontation will be the eventual nuclear exchange that will be horrible (and for them even more horrible than for us).
So, the internal to Islam question who is the good and bad Muslim is extremely important to us, outsiders. Those who from their multicultural political correctness insist that we should not be forceful in helping out in this internal question only guarantee the victory of the worst outcome.
You are correct.
Mohamed was nothing but Hitler on a camel.
Every evil cult has some decent people in it.
Many Nazi's and Commie party members weren't bad people.
They just (unfortunately) chose to belong to a party with an evil ideology, most likely out of political expedience, fear, or societal/peer pressure. Likewise with many "good" Islamics...
It's a shame this decent man you referenced is a member of a brainwashed death cult, because that's the reality.
"Shiite Muslim Marine fights the war on terrorism with Company L, 3/25
Marine Corps News ^ | Sep 20, 2005 | Cpl. Ken Melton
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1488432/posts"
While the story you site is interesting, the following story is imprinted in my memory.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154979,00.html
Akbar Sentenced to Death for Grenade Attack
Friday , April 29, 2005
FORT BRAGG, N.C. — A military jury sentenced a soldier to death Thursday for a grenade and rifle attack on his own comrades during the opening days of the Iraq invasion, a barrage that killed two officers and that prosecutors said was driven by religious extremism.
... the early morning March 2003 attack also wounded 14 fellow members of the Army's 101st Airborne Division at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait.
~~snip
Akbar threw grenades into troop tents in the early morning darkness and then fired on soldiers in the ensuing chaos. Army Capt. Chris Seifert, 27, and Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, 40, were killed.
Prosecutors say Akbar launched the attack at his camp — days before the soldiers were to move into Iraq — because he was concerned about U.S. troops killing fellow Muslims in the Iraq war.
~~snip
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/256523.html
Honor the Fallen: Army Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert
That would be a good project, I'm certain.
And if I do that, I will let you know, if not post the results.
Yes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.