Category: War on Terror

A group of North American Islamic clerics and organizations have finally issued a Fatwa that purports to condemn terrorism.

Eric Hogue is among many that have vocalized the questions that many of us have asked for years. Among these questions is: Why now? What does this really mean? Are they for real or just providing some positive public relations? Is this enough to satisfy you of the sincerity of the Islamic community?

Hearing the discussion on his program this morning caused a flurry of thoughts to race through my head. My first reaction was to recall many recent terror attacks in the West.
• On 9-11 did they condemn the terror? No
• Did they condemn the shoe bomber and other foiled terror plots? No
• When our troops in Iraq were attacked by suicide bombers was the terror condemned? No
• When Western civilian contractors in the Middle East were beheaded did they condemn terror? No
• When the Spanish commuter trains were bombed, did the respond? No
• When the same resorts in Egypt were bombed on two occasions killing vacationing European and Israeli tourists, did they condemn terror? No
• When the trains in London were bombed did they condemn terror? No
• When a lone US Congressman suggested that if we were nuked that an attack on Muslim holy sites should be an option, did they respond? YES

My conclusion is that either these clerics finally figured out that they have been tone deaf for four years and it has resulted in deep seated distrust of their people because they have been perpetuating extremism by their silence or the Congressman has advocated playing by their rules and got their attention.

Either way, a press release is too little, too late. These folks need to police their own if they want to stem the growing distrust that non-Muslims have for Islam. They need to backup this Fatwa with action. Turn in terrorists before they attack. Condemn every act of terror from here on out, yes, even those acts committed against Israel. If they are not with us, they are against us.

I have heard several parsing of the actual text of the Fatwa. I find little comfort in the wording because clearly it allows for killing in some unnamed circumstances. “Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…”

What is just v unjust killing? Are non-believers of Islam covered by this or only other Moslems? How is “all people” defined? Is there a universal understanding or is everyone left to decide that for themselves?

I’ve been around enough theologians to know that each word was approved and no more specific than it had to be to get signers to the declaration. Unfortunately, there is enough room in this Fatwa to drive a Humvee through it without getting a scratch.

Many of the signatories of this proclamation have had ties to terror groups in the past. Are they finally seeing the light or feeling the heat? Or worse yet, are they covering their clerical butts because they know another attack is in the works in the US and they need plausible deniability?

I’m sorry fellas but you will have to backup your nice Fatwa with lots of action. As long as terrorists have aid and comfort from your community, you have not done your part. When the extremists are afraid and outcasts among your people then I will believe your polite words.

US. Rep Tom Tancred  has touched off a firestorm of controversy by commenting that in response to a nuclear attack on the United States, a military response to such an attack might include bombing Moslem holy sites such as Mecca.

Hugh Hewitt spent most of his show on July 18th trying to defend pluralism and verbally spank the Congressman for his remarks. Many former military members called Hewitt’s show defending the idea that all options must be on the table including nuking Mecca. I think Hewitt was surprised that so many would agree with the Congressman. Hewitt tried to dismiss the Congressman as a fruitcake that should apologize as soon as possible.

While Mecca would not be at the top of my targeting list, I think that we learned that it is a bad idea to publicly rule out any type of target. As soon as we announced that mosques in Iraq were off limits to American soldiers and should be protected, guess where all the terrorists congregated? Had we then destroyed the buildings, perhaps it would have been a good tactic. However, more Americans died due to these politically correct limitations on the war.

I think the President was right when he said that you are either with us or with the terrorists. I just hope Iran and Syria get visited by some of the more elite members on Uncle Sam’s payroll.

Hewitt discounts the assertion that the Global War on Terror is a religious war. I believe that it has been since the Beirut barracks bombing. It just took us two decades to take it seriously. We may not be at war with all of Islam but we are at war with a denomination within the Islamic world. The people at war with the West are the true believers. Those that believe their scripture is the word of their god and take it literally are the ones we are fighting.

In the West, if I believe that the Bible is true and should be taken literally I am a good Christian. Why is this normative for me but if I follow Islam, and believe the same things about Koran, then I am a terrorist. It seems to me that destroying the West is the true form of Islam, and the type that George Bush hopes that the Islamic World will adopt is a heretical form. This isn’t the view being popularized today but based on its history; I think it is a more realistic view of Islamic history.

It is clear that the God of Christianity is incompatible with Allah. People like Hewitt will take pluralism over orthodoxy. Pluralism is just a temporary cease fire until one side gains an advantage over the other. The political consensus in the West is just a new version of Roman theology. In ancient times, you could believe in any god as long as you declare that Caesar is Lord. Now, in America you can have any god as long as the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court is Lord. This was never the intent of the Founders. Freedom of religion as found in the First Amendment was intended to allow for a variety of Christian sects not equality of all faiths or freedom from religion. Both are distortions of original intent.

Forcing a pluralistic template upon the Mohammedans of the world will not succeed. 9-11 was the modern equivalent of the barbarians sacking Roman in the declining years of the Empire. Will our leaders get a spine or repeat history? I think we have yet to properly identify our enemy and have the will to deal with them.

Joe Farah, the man behind WorldNetDaily.com, posted a very disturbing article titled “Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.” The article makes many profound assertions about the next attack on American soil.

According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the “American Hiroshima” and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border …

I read the article twice yesterday, once at lunch and the second time last night to my wife. Her reaction and mine was how can this be? Farah’s article is part fact, part Tom Clancy and part Mission Impossible. But we must ask ourselves are his assertions true?

Unfortunately, there are no sources sighted to backup many of his assumed facts.

Farah claims that “Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads.” He goes on to assert that several nuclear weapons have already been smuggled into the United States.

This article then begins to morph into a long form advertisement for a forthcoming book about this very subject. This begs the question of whether this is a factual article or an advertisement dressed-up as a news item. Finally, the article then shifts to advocating better border security and the Minuteman Project.

I have spent enough time on his website to wonder aloud if Mr. Farah will be the publisher of the book that he plugged in this article. He uses his book sales to subsidize the support staff of his website. At the very least, I’m sure that this book will be among those offered to readers of his website.

The fact that the book plugged in this article will probably end-up for sale on this website forces me to question if this is journalism or profiteering.

As for the claims made in the article, I’m sure we can agree that Al-Qaida wishes they had nukes. However, I’m in the camp that believes that if they had them they would use them.

 

My heart goes out to the victims and families of these barbaric acts. I pray that those responsible will be caught and punished. 

Craig DeLuz nails it when he says “They’ll Like Us When We Win.”