What al Qaeda Really Wants: An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps

[eieio]

After a while it's become clear to me that many of us here are unaware of the real goals of al Qaeda as specified in the Koran.

In this thread I want everyone to leave here with no doubt about what is at stake at this time in our history.

I invite all of you add information which makes the answer plain and understandable to anyone who cares to read and I invite all of you to ask any questions you'd like to get this matter settled in your mind.

What al Qaeda Really Wants: An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps


THE FUTURE OF TERRORISM

What al-Qaida Really Wants

By Yassin Musharbash

If there is anyone who might possibly have an inkling as to what al-Qaida are up to, it is the Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein. He has not only spent time in prison with al-Zarqawi, but has also managed make contact with many of the network's leaders. Based on correspondence with these sources, he has now brought out a book detailing the organization's master plan.

There must be something particularly trustworthy about the Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein. After all, he has managed to get some of the the most sought after terrorists to open up to him. Maybe it helped that they spent time together in prison many years ago -- when Hussein was a political prisoner he successfully negotiated for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to be released from solitary confinement. Or is it because of the honest and direct way in which he puts his ideas onto paper? Whatever the reason, the result is that a film which Hussein made about al-Zarqawi has even been shown on al-Qaida affiliated Web sites. "That showed me that they at least felt understood," the journalist says.

Even for an Arab journalist it is no easy matter getting in touch with al-Qaida's inner circle. Nevertheless, Hussein, who is based in Amman, Jordan, has succeeded in turning his correspondence with the terrorists into a remarkable book: "al-Zarqawi - al-Qaida's Second Generation."

If you meet Hussein, as you might when he is relaxing in Amman's Café Vienna, you see he is calm and laid-back, without any of the glamour of a secret service spy. But what this small, slim man has to report is nothing less than the world's most dangerous terrorist network's plan of action: al-Qaida's strategy for the next two decades. It is both frightening and absurd, a lunatic plan conceived by fanatics who live in their own world, but who continually manage to break into the real world with their brutal acts of violence.

One of Hussein's most sensational sources for the book, according to what he told SPIEGEL Online, was Seif al-Adl. The Egyptian terrorist, who is suspected of taking part in the attacks on the American Embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, has a ransom of US$5 million on his head from the FBI. Secret services suspect that al-Adl is now in Iran.

To prove that he really has had contact to al-Adl, Hussein includes in the first two pages of the book a copy of a hand-written letter the wanted man sent to the author. In the original document, which is 15 pages long, al-Adl describes the disagreements between al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden during the Afghanistan war. "Statements from Seif al-Adl have also crept into the chapter on al-Qaida's strategy," explains Fouad Hussein.

An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps

In the introduction, the Jordanian journalist writes, "I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future." What he then describes between pages 202 and 213 is a scenario, proof both of the terrorists' blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness. In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.

The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."


The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.


The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.


The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.


The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.


The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.


The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half billion Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.

A Serious Plan?

But just how serious is this scenario? "Al-Qaida makes no compromises," says the book's author Fouad Hussein. He obviously believes that this seven-point plan could well become the guiding principle for a whole range of al-Qaida fighters. Hussein is far from an hysterical alarmist -- in fact he is seen as a serious journalist and his Zarqawi book is better than most of the reports in Arabic on the subject. Only last year, the journalist made a film which was received with great interest and was shown on the German-French TV channel arte. In it he provided deep insights into al-Qaida's internet propaganda machine.

Nevertheless, there is no way the scenario he depicts can be seen as a plan which al-Qaida can follow step by step. The terrorist network just doesn't work like that anymore. The significance of the central leadership has diminished and its direct commands have lost a great deal of importance. The supposed master plan for the years 2000 to 2020 reads in parts more like a group of ideas cobbled together in retrospect, than something planned and presented in advance. And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: the idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality -- especially phases four to seven.

But that doesn't mean that we should simply discount everything that Hussein has uncovered. A few of the steps in the agenda are plausible. The idea that Syria will become a focus for the Mujahedin is regarded by experts as highly likely. "Close ranks, concentrate on getting more recruits, set up cells," was the call to the "Mujahedin in Syria" which appeared on one Web site at the beginning of August. From the point of view of the jihadists, Israel and Turkey are also fairly logical targets for an escalation of the confrontation. "Al-Qaida views every fight as a victory, because for so long Muslims didn't have any weapons at all," says Hussein. He may not be far off. As for Jordan, al-Qaida leaders such as al-Zarqawi, have already made attacks on the country. They have also stated on numerous occasions that Jerusalem is the real target.

Equally, the idea that in the future al-Qaida could increasingly become a movement that attracts young frustrated men, is hardly a theory plucked out of thin air. The terror network puts a lot of effort into its propaganda -- assumedly in order to expand its support base.

[eieio]

Attacks on the West: a Means to an End

What is interesting is that major attacks against the West are not even mentioned by Fouad Hussein. Terrorism here cannot be ignored -- but it seems these attacks simply supplement the larger aim of setting up an Islamic caliphate. Attacks such as those in New York, Madrid and London would in this case not be ends in themselves, but rather means to a achieve a larger purpose -- steps in a process of increasing insecurity in the West.

Nowadays, it is harder than ever to truly understand al-Qaida: the organization has degenerated into branches and loosely connected cells, related groups are taken in, and people who hardly had anything to do with al-Qaida before, now carry out attacks in its name. It is hard to imagine orders which come right from the top because Osama bin Laden spends all his time struggling to survive. At the same time, the division between foot soldiers in the organization and sympathizers is becoming increasingly blurred. It is all too easy to fall prey to disinformation -- al-Qaida also excels in this area. Even Hussein's scenario should be judged skeptically.

His book should therefore be read for what it really is: an attempt to second guess how al-Qaida terrorists think, what they really want and how they propose to get there.



http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,369448,00.html

[anti-liberal]

All I have to say is, Thank God there was a republican in the White House during 9/11.

[wocked]

All I have to say is, Thank God there was a republican in the White House during 9/11.

If only the republicans were able to decipher that complicated August 2001 memo that said, "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."

THAT COULD'VE MEANT SO MANY THINGS!!!

:banghead:

[eieio]

All I have to say is, Thank God there was a republican in the White House during 9/11.

Amen!

Here's another revealing article.


Why Islam Hates Democracy

FrontPageMagazine.com | June 6, 2002


IN 1989, Iran’s Islamic tyrant Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa – a compulsory religious decree in Islam – that condemned Salman Rushdie to death. Rushdie had committed the crime of writing his book The Satanic Verses, which was, in Khomeini’s mind, slanderous to the Prophet Muhammad. In Islam, those who insult Allah or the Prophet are subject to the death penalty.

In 1992, Farag Foda, an Egyptian writer known for his secularist views, was shot dead outside his office in the heart of Cairo. This intellectual consistently called out for open dialogue with Islamic fundamentalists. The militant Islamic group al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya gleefully claimed not only responsibility, but justification. One of the gunmen, Abdul-Shafi Ahmad Ramadan, who was apprehended after the attack, boasted to police: "We had to kill him, because he attacked our beliefs."

Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, a prominent and distinguished Egyptian cleric, testified at the Foda murder trial in defense of the accused. He stated that Ramadan had done his Islamic duty because Foda had revealed his apostasy in opposing the establishment of an Islamic state, in rejecting Sharia Law (the law of Islam), and in questioning the unity of the state and religion.

The circumstances surrounding the death bounty on Rushdie’s head and the execution of Foda illuminate to us one serious and critical phenomenon: Islam’s inability to join the modern world.

Question: what happens in a society where "slandering" Muhammad, which is punishable by death, can entail the smallest disagreement with an Islamic law or even the hint of the support of a Western idea? How can a culture grow when a voiced social criticism of any kind or a reinterpretation of the Koran can be easily construed as slandering Muhammad and, therefore, be punished by death?

Answer: it can’t.

The tremendous success that has driven Western civilization is secularism. Islamic civilization sees secularism as anathema. In order to catch up with the West, Islam must embrace secularism, but embracing secularism would force Islam to sacrifice its Islamic character. This is why a reformed Islam is an oxymoron, because Islam cannot reform and still remain Islam.


The very meaning of Islam is the unquestioning submission to Allah and to Islamic law. The Koran is a body of doctrine that Muslims are expected to accept unquestioningly - without scrutinizing it for any flaws. Any notion that exists outside of the literal understanding of the Koran is regarded as being associated with sin at best and heresy at worst.

Islam is seen as perfect by Muslims. It is a total way of life. It doesn’t need any new ideas or any legal revisions to complement any new learning or new needs of society. In fact, Islam regards even the suggestion of new ideas or legal revisions as being un-Islamic. And if something is un-Islamic, it could be construed as being slanderous to Muhammad. And guess what happens next?

The use of the human faculty of reason itself, upon which the Western Enlightenment was based, is considered to be a form of heresy in Islam. This is why literacy, science and mathematics have often been regarded by the ulama (the scholars in Islam) as a threat to Islam.

It doesn’t really take a rocket scientist, therefore, to figure out why, throughout its long history of being repeatedly overwhelmed by foreign invaders, foreign rule, and foreign influences, the Arab world has absorbed absolutely nothing from the outside world. Self-insulated, Islam is intrinsically resistant to change.

In the Islamic Arab world, any foreign idea is heavily suspect. Any Western notion is automatically associated with evil. Thus, if the infidels say that an object will fall because of the laws of gravity, Muslims will suspect this to be a demonic lie. But if the same laws of gravity are sanctioned by a voice that is seen as representing authentic Islam, then such laws are automatically believed.

Individualism, creativity and originality are non-existent in the Arab world. And it is no mystery why the worlds of competition and commerce have spawned economic success stories in places like Japan and other Pacific societies in the post-WWII era, while the Arab world has been ridden with falling incomes, economic lethargy and social stagnation.

The bottom line is that the very notion of any new invention or innovation (Bida) is seen in Islam as being an offense to Allah. This is why, whenever anything even remotely close to a debate occurs in the Islamic Middle East, the accusation of Bida, which remains the most popular and effective accusation in the Arab world, immediately terminates the debate. The individual accused of Bida knows where the accusation can lead.

This reality might help explain why a functional democracy is nowhere to be found in the entire Arab world.

In the eyes of Islam, the very notion of democracy is demonized. In Islam, after all, Allah is sovereign, which means that humans constructing their own laws is sinful. The Koran and Sharia Law give Muslims all the laws they need. This is why Islam sees faith and politics as a single domain and why Farag Foda had to be killed for questioning it.

In Islam, democracy, as well as the very notion of the freedom of human conscience, represents a dangerous deviation from the Koran and the Sharia. Elections are seen as a form of blasphemy. They are Satan’s vehicle to destroy the Koran.

The Taliban in Afghanistan perfectly represented the logical extension of this despotic, impoverished and impotent way of Islamic life. They implemented Islamic belief in the most literal manner possible: everything that was prohibited in the Koran, and everything that was not mentioned in the Koran, simply became illegal.

Thus, aside from engaging in the typical oppression of women that is found in every Islamic Arab society, the Taliban banned television, film, books, photography, music (even at weddings) and sports. They also illegalized laughing.

The Taliban weren’t too concerned about the utter emptiness and insipidity they had left in the environment of the people they ruled. After all, there were always the passages from the Koran to memorize. And, as Mullah Hassan, the former Taliban governor of Kandahar, patiently explained: "Of course, we realize that people need some entertainment. We tell them to go to the parks and see the flowers. From this, they will absorb the essence of Islam."

Flowers are indeed beautiful. But building a prosperous and dynamic society, nurturing democratic institutions, fostering economic growth, and safeguarding the sacredness and freedom of the human conscience demands much more than just the aesthetic appreciation of flowers.

It demands what the West has and the Islamic world miserably lacks.

But how does the Islamic world gain it if it cannot shed itself of how and why Salman Rushdie must live the rest of his life in hiding – escaping the fate of Farag Foda?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/696303/posts


Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by anti-liberal
All I have to say is, Thank God there was a republican in the White House during 9/11.

If only the republicans were able to decipher that complicated August 2001 memo that said, "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."

THAT COULD'VE MEANT SO MANY THINGS!!!



I agree. All we can do now is to look ahead and do the best we can NOW.

[wocked]

I agree. All we can do now is to look ahead and do the best we can NOW.

Because the republicans are doing so well now?

[eieio]

Because the republicans are doing so well now?

If you are interested in bashing the President, the Administration, the conduct of the war in Iraq, the conduct of the war on terror, the G.O.P., or conservatives, I'll be glad to entertain you after you share with me your view of the threat to America and what you believe is the goal of al Qaeda and what you believe the instructions from the Koran to the faithful are.

[wocked]

If you are interested in bashing the President, the Administration, the conduct of the war in Iraq, the conduct of the war on terror, the G.O.P., or conservatives, I'll be glad to entertain you after you share with me your view of the threat to America and what you believe is the goal of al Qaeda and what you believe the instructions from the Koran to the faithful are.

I wholeheartedly acknowledge the threat of Al Qaeda and the exploitation of Islam on ignorant and angry Middle Easterners. Nonetheless, I still find that the GOP's foreign policy has created more enemies than it started off with.

[eieio]

I wholeheartedly acknowledge the threat of Al Qaeda and the exploitation of Islam on ignorant and angry Middle Easterners. Nonetheless, I still find that the GOP's foreign policy has created more enemies than it started off with.

I think that no matter what we did to try to stop Islamic expansion, whether the violent terrorist variety or the non-violent efforts, we would either be ineffective by trying to avoid pissing off jihadist Muslims* or effective but have a lot of Muslims and lefties, pissed off.

Do you think it would be possible to effectively stop the global Islamic expansion AND keep Muslims placated as well?

If so, how might that be done? Do you think they can be negotiated with? The Koran is unchanged in 1400 years and the religion itself is largely the same.

* Keeping in mind that they are jihadist already as a result of what they are instructed by the Koran to do. The attacks that happened before we invaded Iraq in 2003 are evidence that global jihad had nothing to do with our interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There was 9/11, the USS Cole attack, the two African Embassy attacks, the ambush in Somalia, the 1993 WTC bombing and attempts to hijack 10 airliners and blow them up over the ocean, and an attempt to blow up LAX. ALL OF THESE took place before we invaded anyone.

[wocked]

I think that no matter what we did to try to stop Islamic expansion, whether the violent terrorist variety or the non-violent efforts, we would either be ineffective by trying to avoid pissing off jihadist Muslims* or effective but have a lot of Muslims and lefties, pissed off.

Do you think it would be possible to effectively stop the global Islamic expansion AND keep Muslims placated as well?

If so, how might that be done? Do you think they can be negotiated with? The Koran is unchanged in 1400 years and the religion itself is largely the same.

* Keeping in mind that they are jihadist already as a result of what they are instructed by the Koran to do. The attacks that happened before we invaded Iraq in 2003 are evidence that global jihad had nothing to do with our interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There was 9/11, the USS Cole attack, the two African Embassy attacks, the ambush in Somalia, the 1993 WTC bombing and attempts to hijack 10 airliners and blow them up over the ocean, and an attempt to blow up LAX. ALL OF THESE took place before we invaded anyone.

You have to realize that the men instructing these jihadists are dementing the Koran. Moderate Islam does not involve stuff like this. These are people who are pissed off and they twist religion to justify their behaviour to themselves. If people followed the Bible ad verbatim then there would still be slavery and killing on the Sabbath. Sick bastards use religion as a tool to compel the angry to follow them blindly.

And I didn't say the War on Terror is responsible for terrorism period. I'm saying the strategy used is wrong and has only made matters worse. These terrorists are angry people who think they're fighting for a cause. When you go into another country for specious reasons and blow up innocent civilians, you're only creating more angry people.

Ask yourself this: if a bunch of Americans claiming to represent the Bible attacked another country for reasons that make only sense to them and that country retaliated by invading your country and killed your friends and family, would you not react the same way as the insurgents?

[eieio]

triple post

[eieio]

triple post

[eieio]

You have to realize that the men instructing these jihadists are dementing the Koran. Moderate Islam does not involve stuff like this. These are people who are pissed off and they twist religion to justify their behaviour to themselves. If people followed the Bible ad verbatim then there would still be slavery and killing on the Sabbath. Sick bastards use religion as a tool to compel the angry to follow them blindly.

And I didn't say the War on Terror is responsible for terrorism period. I'm saying the strategy used is wrong and has only made matters worse. These terrorists are angry people who think they're fighting for a cause. When you go into another country for specious reasons and blow up innocent civilians, you're only creating more angry people.

Ask yourself this: if a bunch of Americans claiming to represent the Bible attacked another country for reasons that make only sense to them and that country retaliated by invading your country and killed your friends and family, would you not react the same way as the insurgents?

Oliver North: "There is no such thing as an Islamic moderate"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602070008

The Search for Moderate Islam: Part I
Does it Exist?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16798

All or Nothing (The quest for a moderate Islam may be futile.)
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1647943/posts

Identifying Moderate Muslims
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2226

The Elusive Moderate Muslim
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5888

Oh Moderate Muslims, Where Art Thou?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10665

Why don't moderate Muslims speak up?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000343.php

What Moderate Muslims?

January 17, 2006

A week ago, James Joyner of Outside the Beltway sent me a link to this post commenting on a column by Stephen Schwartz on the meaning of moderate Islam. He wanted my opinion of it since Schwartz had made a ridiculous statement about the use of the word 'Salafism', and I often use that word to describe the foundational Islamist theology of terrorist organizations. In it, Schwartz makes a lot of claims about a moderate form of Islam which has been hijacked by a more severe form of Wahhabism.

Instead of replying directly to James, I punted and sent the article off to our good friend Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. Robert has delivered the promise he made to me to rebutt Schwartz's article. Here is a bit of it:

Schwartz then turns back to the Sunnis, asserting that “moderate Sunni Muslims may be recognized in person by asking a simple question: ‘what do you think of Wahhabism, the state Islamic sect of Saudi Arabia?’…If a Sunni Muslim is asked about Wahhabism and states that it is a controversial, extreme doctrine that causes many problems because of Saudi money, the respondent is probably moderate.” In contrast, “If a Sunni denies that Wahhabism exists by saying ‘there is only Islam,’ or tries to cover Wahhabism with an ameliorative term like ‘Salafism’ -- a fraudulent effort to equate Wahhabism with the pioneers of the Islamic faith -- the individual is an extremist.”

But is opposing Wahhabism enough to make one a moderate? After all, the Deobandis in Afghanistan are Hanafi Muslims, not Hanbalis like the Wahhabis — but they had no trouble making common cause in jihad with the Wahhabis. What’s more, the passages of the Qur’an and Hadith that jihadists invoke to justify their actions weren’t invented by the Wahhabis; they have always been there and were exploited by Muslims fighting violent jihads long before Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was born.

After all, the primary difference between Wahhabi Islam and more traditional variants of the religion is not jihad warfare against unbelievers, but the Wahhabis’ practice of takfir, or the classification of Muslims of other sects as among those unbelievers.

Schwartz accordingly eschews takfir: “Moderate Muslims may also be identified by what they do not do, to contrast them with radicals. And at the top of that list comes the practice of takfir, or declaring Muslims unbelievers over differences of opinion. Takfir also includes describing the ordinary, traditional Muslim majority in the world as having fallen into unbelief.”

Very well, but what of jihad against non-Muslims? Schwartz says: “Islam is not, and never was, a radical or fundamentalist religion in its mainstream practice, regardless of the fantasies of Islamist fanatics and Islamophobes alike.” Maybe not, but I’d like to see him define “radical” and “fundamentalist.” Even the Ottoman Empire, of which he is fond, waged aggressive jihad against Christian Europe over a period of centuries. Not radical or fundamentalist? Pardon me if I am not reassured.

READ THE ENTIRE THING. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009791.php

Wahhabism is not the problem. Wahhabism is a problem, because it has state sponsors in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to spread its dogma. The problem then is main stream Islam--even moderate Islam.

Moderate is a meaningless term which can only be understood as relative to the society we are talking about. For instance, could a historian distinguish between moderate and extremist Nazis? A moderate Nazi might be said to be one who is thoroughly antisemetic, but who insists that the 'Jewish question' ought to be solved through forced segregation and laws against intermarriage. The word moderate, then, can be used to describe ideologies which only seem moderate when compared to a much more extremist alternative. If that moderate ideology were examined on its own terms it might very well seem extreme.

If the only thing that differentiates moderate Muslims from extremists are a rejection of takfir and of terrorism, then truly the world is full of moderate Muslims. But is that enough?

I have a very simple way to determine if the form of Islam is acceptable to me: does it reject Sharia. That is it.

As a political observe I have no theological interest whatsoever in Islam and could care less if Muhammed was a prophet or not or about Islam's stance on Trinitarian doctrine. I really don't care. What I do care about is whether or not a Muslim believes that law and government ought to be strictly secular in orientation or not.

Even liberal Muslims who believe in the establishment of Sharia carry with them a dangerous and anti-libertarian philosophy. Imagine, for instance, a liberal Sharia court which gives a man a fine for blasphemy. A moderate Sharia court might give the man a light jail sentence. The extremist Wahhabi court might sentence the man to a long sentence or even to death.

In all three cases a form of religious fascism exists. Whether or not we choose to call these varying religious forms moderate or not is really inconsequential. One may be worse than the other, but all three are bad.

The fascism of Franco's Spain was surely more moderate than the fascism of Nazi Germany, but I still would not have wanted to endure it.

As long as Islam embraces Sharia, I will reject Islam as a fascist ideology. Any form of Islam that rejects it is okay in my book.

UPDATE: James Joyner replies here with the usual thoughtful commentary. I also noticed a TB to this post by Ocean Guy, a new blog to me. In it he makes this inciteful comment:

If the Pope is right, then the only difference between extreme, moderate and liberal Muslims is how harshly each would/does treat non-Muslims living in their midst. There are hundreds of years of history which give us clear pictures of the spectrum of treatment that non-Muslims are subjected to under Muslim rule. We'd be wise to learn from them.

Indeed. I would add that some slaves had very nice masters who treated them well. Having a nice master, though, still makes one a slave.

Posted by Dr. Rusty Shackleford at January 17, 2006 12:28 PM | TrackBack
Comments


http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/152131.php

[eieio]

Bumped to the top

[Danimal87]

I wholeheartedly acknowledge the threat of Al Qaeda and the exploitation of Islam on ignorant and angry Middle Easterners. Nonetheless, I still find that the GOP's foreign policy has created more enemies than it started off with.
Have you even read the Koran? Because I'm sure most Middle Easterners have, and many have it memorized by heart. So I'm a little surprised that you can call them "ignorant" about their own faith.

The Koran instructs its followers to be nice in some areas of its text and to be mean and nasty in other areas.

[Max Tee]

ya see, us 'liberals', we really just want a cool war. And what better way to beat Al-Queda than give them half the world then smash the fuck outta them! :-)

[IrishNed]

And I didn't say the War on Terror is responsible for terrorism period. I'm saying the strategy used is wrong and has only made matters worse. These terrorists are angry people who think they're fighting for a cause. When you go into another country for specious reasons and blow up innocent civilians, you're only creating more angry people.Meanwhile, Islamic sects, 'jockeying' for position when the smoke clears, and no longer constrained by Saddam Hussein, have embarked on a Sectarian Civil War. One of Mohammad's big omissions was: he didn't leave anyone 'in Charge' of interpreting the Koran. That's why there are multiple Sects, the largest of them the Shiites and Sunnis (in Iraq). Each follows different interpretations of the Koran by early Moslems. Don't expect them to reconcile their differences!

Ask yourself this: if a bunch of Americans claiming to represent the Bible attacked another country for reasons that make only sense to them and that country retaliated by invading your country and killed your friends and family, would you not react the same way as the insurgents?Unfortuantely, that Scenario is closer to the truth than you may think: GW Bush invaded Iraq with the full support of his Religious Right supporters. The Christian Conservative movement is Guilty of supporting Bush's War against Iraq as a Religious movement just as Islamic Jihadists are in their war against the Infidels (i.e., non-Moslems).

[pinger]

Jihad against the west is not supported by the vast majority of the muslim world.

There are a number of loud and extreme Muslim identities however who are kind of like the Muslim version of Ann Coulter- extreme, ridiculous, and loud. Like Coulter they are dismissed by the majority of the population- however listened to by the disenfrachised and the un-educated.

The US foregin policy however has continued to fuel anti-US sentiment. THe failure to agree to the geneva conventions, the scandals in Iraq with missappropiration of Iraq wealth, the Haditha incident, Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, the endless semantic redefining and sidestepping of the term "torture" by the Administration, the posturing against Iran, these things have all sought to increase the public disquiet with how America is conducting itself.

However, people like you think it is goood stuff. I don't know why.

[Nocturnal]

It's a shame that you insist on ruining the good information you posted with assorted nonsense.

Bin Laden's desire to renew the Caliphate is something that most of us don't know. That is mostly because the media is too busy saying bullshit like "they hate us for our freedom" and our politicians are too busy grandstanding to get to the heart of the issue.

Then we get stuff like "thank god there was a Repub in office during 9/11" (that was that liberal guy I know).

Comments like that force me to immediately disregard that person's opinions. As if Gore would have sent OBL a plane ticket after 9/11 and told him to come blow up more stuff. People who act as is democrats can't handle security issues have zero knowledge of history or reality.

The image of democrats being soft on security is a hold over from the vietnam era, and from Carter's soft handling of the Iran/Hostage situation. He probably should have used a page out of Reagan's playbook and paid the ransom of the hostages in weapons. Then perhaps he would have aquired that tough-guy persona.

If you are interested in bashing the President, the Administration, the conduct of the war in Iraq, the conduct of the war on terror, the G.O.P., or conservatives, I'll be glad to entertain you after you share with me your view of the threat to America and what you believe is the goal of al Qaeda and what you believe the instructions from the Koran to the faithful are.

I take issue with this part as well. It's obvious we are having some major difficulties with (large?) portions of the Islamic world. However the idea that only the Muslim faith commands it's followers to convert/destroy the non-believers is just silly. In the proper situation I can only assume that most Muslims will ignore their religion enough to fit into the world society, (as the other religions have).

[eieio]

It's a shame that you insist on ruining the good information you posted with assorted nonsense.

Bin Laden's desire to renew the Caliphate is something that most of us don't know. That is mostly because the media is too busy saying bullshit like "they hate us for our freedom" and our politicians are too busy grandstanding to get to the heart of the issue.


Jihadism and the Qur’an

By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 8, 2005

Last week in New York, Oriana Fallaci stated that the Qur’an was the Mein Kampf of the Jihadi movement. She pointed put out that Islam’s holy book demands the annihilation or subjugation of the other, and that it wants to substitute totalitarianism for democracy.

Her statement, as you may imagine, has caused considerable controversy. A few of the statements I have seen:

"Calling the Koran Mein Kampf is muddle headed and hysterical.....deserves a rebuttal."

"There are moderate Moslems.....I lived among them in Turkey while my Bulgarian relatives went to concentration camps..."

"Tarring the whole religion is counterproductive.....Arab Moslems are terrorists in training but many non Arab Moslems are not jihadists....."

"If there are no moderate muslims, as Fallaci says, then we are doomed.....Is it not better to call them Islamofascists or Jihadists?"

"The Koran is 'Mein Kampf'.....oh come on...."

"In order to be a moderate Moslem does one have to renounce the Koran? I think that as usual, Oriana goes too far."

There is a muddle in these comments that needs sorting out. Fallaci said that there was no moderate Islam; she did not say that there were no moderate Muslims. This is a crucial distinction.

As Ibn Warraq has said, "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." In other words, there are manifestly peaceful people who have no intention of working by violent or subversive means to impose Sharia on the West, and who identify themselves as Muslims. This simple fact does not mitigate the other fact, that some high-profile moderates, such as Cleveland Imam Fawaz Damra, who signed the recent Fiqh Council of North America's fatwa against terrorism, turned out to be deceivers.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20455

Then we get stuff like "thank god there was a Repub in office during 9/11" (that was that liberal guy I know).

Comments like that force me to immediately disregard that person's opinions. As if Gore would have sent OBL a plane ticket after 9/11 and told him to come blow up more stuff. People who act as is democrats can't handle security issues have zero knowledge of history or reality.

The image of democrats being soft on security is a hold over from the vietnam era, and from Carter's soft handling of the Iran/Hostage situation. He probably should have used a page out of Reagan's playbook and paid the ransom of the hostages in weapons. Then perhaps he would have aquired that tough-guy persona.

How many times would you let someone punch you in the face before you took it seriously and realized that ignoring the attacks wasn't stopping the punches? These terrorist attacks and attempts took place during the Clinton Administration and his response (or no responses) to them did nothing to dissuade further attacks. So, I don't see how you can assume another Democrat would necessarily respond differently.

Remember, you can't negotiate with jihadists.


World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993: The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage. The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area.

Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993: The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack 2 months later on the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995: Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.

Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995: The Islamic Movement of Change planted a bomb in a Riyadh military compound that killed one U.S. citizen, several foreign national employees of the U.S. government, and over 40 others.

Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack.

Egyptian Letter Bombs, January 2-13, 1997: A series of letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt, postmarks were discovered at Al-Hayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, New York City, London, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Three similar devices, also postmarked in Egypt, were found at a prison facility in Leavenworth, Kansas. Bomb disposal experts defused all the devices, but one detonated at the Al-Hayat office in London, injuring two security guards and causing minor damage.

Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."

Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, November 12, 1997: Two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum Corporation and their Pakistani driver after they drove away from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. The Islami Inqilabi Council, or Islamic Revolutionary Council, claimed responsibility in a call to the U.S. Consulate in Karachi. In a letter to Pakistani newspapers, the Aimal Khufia Action Committee also claimed responsibility.

Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998: Somali militiamen abducted nine Red Cross and Red Crescent workers at an airstrip north of Mogadishu. The hostages included a U.S. citizen, a German, a Belgian, a French, a Norwegian, two Swiss, and one Somali. The gunmen were members of a sub-clan loyal to Ali Mahdi Mohammed, who controlled the northern section of the capital.

U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998: A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. Embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian citizens, and injuring 1 U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the U.S. Embassy facility. The U.S. Government held Usama Bin Laden responsible.

Kidnappings in Kyrgyzstan, August 12, 2000: In the Kara-Su Valley, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan took four U.S. citizens hostage. The Americans escaped on August 12.

Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000: In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Laden were suspected.

Manila Bombing, December 30, 2000: A bomb exploded in a plaza across the street from the U.S. Embassy in Manila, injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front was likely responsible.

[eieio]

I take issue with this part as well. It's obvious we are having some major difficulties with (large?) portions of the Islamic world. However the idea that only the Muslim faith commands it's followers to convert/destroy the non-believers is just silly. In the proper situation I can only assume that most Muslims will ignore their religion enough to fit into the world society, (as the other religions have).

The Forbidden Truth About Islam
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 10, 2005


“Too many people might be emotionally affected by the subject matter. … It’s too controversial to be aired at this time.”

So said a statement from CBS/Infinity Radio, declining to run a series of paid commercial announcements. What were these emotionally affecting and controversial spots advertising? Vivisection of puppies? The North American Man/Boy Love Association? The placement of religious symbols on government property?

None of the above. The rejected ads were to announce a conference, “The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security,” sponsored by the People’s Truth Forum. I will be participating in this symposium on September 21 in Plantsville, Connecticut, along with Harvey Kushner, author of Holy War on the Home Front; Brigitte Gabriel, a former anchor for world news in the Middle East; and Laura Mansfield, an author and counter-terror analyst.

What is so frightening about this for CBS? Well, I cannot speak for the other participants, but at the conference I intend to challenge media bias head-on by exploding the common politically correct notions that American injustice and economic inequalities are the real cause of terrorism, not any imperative derived from Islamic theology. I will show how jihad violence – in the words of terrorists themselves including Osama bin Laden – gains its impetus from core elements of Islamic theology mandating warfare against unbelievers, and call upon sincere moderate Muslims to confront and repudiate these elements of Islam. From what I know of the other speakers, I seriously doubt that they intend to sugar-coat matters or toe the line of politically correct orthodoxy. And the ads, in a quiet but unmistakable way, make that clear.

Why is this too much for CBS? The rejected ads touted the conference as revealing the motivation behind the madness of the 9/11 attacks and announced the speakers. No frothing condemnations of Muslims in general, no calls to nuke Mecca or round up innocent people and throw them into internment camps. In short, nothing but a straightforward announcement of a conference designed to explore the motivations of Islamic terrorists.

The fact that CBS/Infinity Radio would find this in itself too controversial and emotion-arousing for the American people is just one sign of the abysmal state of public discourse about Islamic terrorism today. The forces of political correctness as well as prominent American Islamic advocacy groups seem to be doing all they can to make sure that the American people are not exposed to any serious investigation of the genuine root causes of Islamic terrorism – such as I have undertaken in my new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Even speaking the truth about Islam is becoming increasingly difficult in today’s stifling politically correct atmosphere. After successfully getting radio talk show host Michael Graham suspended for his remarks about Islam, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) directed its ire toward Geoff Metcalf, Graham’s replacement. Metcalf annoyed CAIR by telling his listeners that the Qur’an allows Muslims to lie to unbelievers. Yet even as it complained about Metcalf’s statement, CAIR’s press release attacking Metcalf, Radio Host Claims Quran Teaches Muslims To Lie, doesn’t say that what Metcalf said was false. Why not? Because it’s true.

Religious deception of unbelievers is indeed taught by the Qur’an itself: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them” (Qur’an 3:28). In other words, don’t make friends with unbelievers except to “guard yourselves from them”: pretend to be their friends so that you can strengthen yourself against them. The distinguished Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that this verse teaches that if “believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers,” they may “show friendship to the disbelievers ******dly, but never inwardly.” The Qur’an also warns Muslims that those who forsake Islam will be consigned to Hell — except those forced to do so, but who remain true Muslims inwardly: “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief — except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith — but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty” (Qur’an 16:106). Ibn Kathir explains that “the scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to…go along with them in the interests of self-preservation...”

But if CBS and CAIR get their way, the American people will be denied the ability to act in their interests of their own self-preservation – by being not allowed to investigate and discuss the roots of Islamic violence and terrorism. And that in turn will lead only to our increased vulnerability to new terror attacks, more virulent than any we have seen up to now.

Is that what they want?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19078

[Nocturnal]

How many times would you let someone punch you in the face before you took it seriously and realized that ignoring the attacks wasn't stopping the punches? These terrorist attacks and attempts took place during the Clinton Administration and his response (or no responses) to them did nothing to dissuade further attacks. So, I don't see how you can assume another Democrat would necessarily respond differently.

Remember, you can't negotiate with jihadists.

That bird doesn't fly. The failure to handle the Islamic Terror threat was on the shoulders of both political parties. The 9/11 chain of events didn't start during Clinton's presidency.

Nobody anticipated such a large attack. Clinton was blasted when he did react to to Al Qaeda. He was destroyed in the press by his conservative enemies. Perhaps if the GOP hadn't been so interested in his dick, he might have done something more concrete? We will never know though, so that chance was lost. How soon people forget those days.

"Clinton bombs Al Qaeda (terrorist) training camps"

GOP response "He is trying to distract us from his sex life, let's blast him"

Great job guys! Oh yeah, the Repub leadership was so worried about terrorism. :rolleyes:

Fast forward to 2000, so what the hell did GW do about terrorism before 9/11? Not a single damn thing, if terrorism had been such a recognized danger surely our great leader would have done something right away. Right?

It's common sense, you can't claim that in hindsight such and such president should have done this. Where were Bush's pre-election speeches about terrorism? Were were the articles in the conservative media? Were was the shoot from the hip, straight talking GW action that the Right Wing claims to love? Nothing, he didn't do a damn thing, the Democrat/terrosim argument is pure insanity.

You revel too much in the standard O'reilly-esque partisan nonsense to be considered a serious observer on this subject. Anyone who dares to pin the blame of 9/11 on a single man, regardless of his political party, is a downright fool.

[rand0m]

the only good terrorist is a dead terroirst.

Its a simple choice we give them, if you feel you need to 'terrorise' us then we will kill you. If you get on with your lives and try and actually rebuild that piece of shit land you live in, we will help you with that and not kill you.

[Sketcher]

Then we get stuff like "thank god there was a Repub in office during 9/11" (that was that liberal guy I know).

Comments like that force me to immediately disregard that person's opinions. As if Gore would have sent OBL a plane ticket after 9/11 and told him to come blow up more stuff. People who act as is democrats can't handle security issues have zero knowledge of history or reality.

Clinton was ineffective when it came to terrorism. What makes you think his VP would have been any better?
Remember, 9/11 wasn't the first time Al-Qaeda attacked us.

[PitwrkzZ1]

the only good terrorist is a dead terroirst.

Its a simple choice we give them, if you feel you need to 'terrorise' us then we will kill you. If you get on with your lives and try and actually rebuild that piece of shit land you live in, we will help you with that and not kill you.
America: Your best friend or your worst enemy.

[rand0m]

America: Your best friend or your worst enemy.

America and Europe = Superpower's, Stong economy, Peace, Rights, Laws.

Middle East = Weak Countries, riddled with conflict and war, corrupt governments, Terroirsts and poverty.

I'd pick wisely, who do you want to side with.

[Max Tee]

well, us brits love an underdog......

[Danimal87]

The image of democrats being soft on security is a hold over from the vietnam era, and from Carter's soft handling of the Iran/Hostage situation. He probably should have used a page out of Reagan's playbook and paid the ransom of the hostages in weapons. Then perhaps he would have aquired that tough-guy persona.
The image of Democrats being soft on security comes directly from senior Democrats who call for troop "redeployment" right after we score a major hit on the al-Qaeda network in Iraq. You can't get more cowardly when you start retreating even from victory.

[zeikon]

People should study Islam before they start to criticize the religion of our beloved Prophet Mohammad.

Here's a link for those who yearn to know the true nature of Islam:

http://thereligionofpeace.com/

[bergshadow]

In this thread I want everyone to leave here with no doubt about what is at stake at this time in our history. Al Qaida and Islamic jihad is not the biggest threat the US faces at this time in its history. It isn't even in the top five - ordinary Islam, the peaceful and non-jihad stuff, is a bigger threat in itself.

Greenhouse gas effects are more significant and more dangerous. The Christian evangelical movement within the US military is more dangerous. The creation of an underclass of non-citizens responsible for the menial work in the US is more dangerous. Lots of things are more dangerous than the fanatics of Al Qaida.

AQ is a bunch of hairy, violent nutjobs that have no chance of taking over even one of the smaller Islamic countries of the middle east, let alone destroying the US.

Just because they have some kind of delusional program, for restoring a semi-mythical Caliphate or converting the world to righteousness by force or something, is not reason to take them seriously in any respect except their predeliction for killing people with bombs - which is a law enforcement problem, and a serious one.

btw: Not to defend the inept J Carter, but he was not wholly responsible for the "softness" in the hostage situation. The secret deals made with Iran by Reagan's supporters to aid their candidate's chances in the election, followed through on immediately afterwards, were also major factors. And of course later on the immediate withdrawal by Reagan of the Marines in Lebanon after the terrorist barracks bombing was the big and memorable lesson in US cowardice and ineffectuality, still used as an illustration of what works against America, still used to inspire the jihadists.

Why Reagan's extraordinary "errors" have not been widely used as examples of failure in fighting terrorism is something of a mystery - the worst anti-terrorist fuck-up in office until recently seems to have been largely overlooked.

[Max Tee]

People should study Islam before they start to criticize the religion of our beloved Prophet Mohammad.

Here's a link for those who yearn to know the true nature of Islam:

http://thereligionofpeace.comisnotgonnaworkinmypost/

The actual site is just some racist propaganda, dont bother guys

[KILL ISLAM!!]

The actual site is just some racist propaganda, dont bother guys

why do you think i didnt bother clicking the link

yes but there are some verses that include jews and christians: i think this is how it went
Do not befriend jews, they are friends with christians do not befriend Kafirs (infidels)

[eieio]

That bird doesn't fly. The failure to handle the Islamic Terror threat was on the shoulders of both political parties. The 9/11 chain of events didn't start during Clinton's presidency.

Nobody anticipated such a large attack. Clinton was blasted when he did react to to Al Qaeda. He was destroyed in the press by his conservative enemies. Perhaps if the GOP hadn't been so interested in his dick, he might have done something more concrete? We will never know though, so that chance was lost. How soon people forget those days.

"Clinton bombs Al Qaeda (terrorist) training camps"

GOP response "He is trying to distract us from his sex life, let's blast him"

Great job guys! Oh yeah, the Repub leadership was so worried about terrorism. :rolleyes:

Fast forward to 2000, so what the hell did GW do about terrorism before 9/11? Not a single damn thing, if terrorism had been such a recognized danger surely our great leader would have done something right away. Right?

It's common sense, you can't claim that in hindsight such and such president should have done this. Where were Bush's pre-election speeches about terrorism? Were were the articles in the conservative media? Were was the shoot from the hip, straight talking GW action that the Right Wing claims to love? Nothing, he didn't do a damn thing, the Democrat/terrosim argument is pure insanity.

You revel too much in the standard O'reilly-esque partisan nonsense to be considered a serious observer on this subject. Anyone who dares to pin the blame of 9/11 on a single man, regardless of his political party, is a downright fool.

Nah.

Try as you might you can't revise history enough to squirm out of this.

His ineffective actions came first. The American public's reaction came afterwards. If he could be more like GWB he might have done what he thought was right rather than acting ineffectively and worrying about whether people would be upset with him. Dammit, if he was convinced they were a real threat (and I can produce quotes that prove he knew bin Laden and al Qaeda were threats and that Saddam was a real threat!) he should have realized that his first priority or his second priority or his third priority wasn't to do things that would make him well liked.

Sometimes a leader has to LEAD and not just do the things that would make his ratings (ahem) rise.

GWB was still getting used to the job and trying to establish his administration on 9/11.

Bill Clinton had a similar experience at a similar point in time of his presidency (38 days into it). Here's a terrific article which makes the point far better than I might.

Read it and weep.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-issue112901.shtml

[Nocturnal]

Nah.

Try as you might you can't revise history enough to squirm out of this.

His ineffective actions came first. The American public's reaction came afterwards. If he could be more like GWB he might have done what he thought was right rather than acting ineffectively and worrying about whether people would be upset with him. Dammit, if he was convinced they were a real threat (and I can produce quotes that prove he knew bin Laden and al Qaeda were threats and that Saddam was a real threat!) he should have realized that his first priority or his second priority or his third priority wasn't to do things that would make him well liked.

Sometimes a leader has to LEAD and not just do the things that would make his ratings (ahem) rise.

GWB was still getting used to the job and trying to establish his administration on 9/11.

Bill Clinton had a similar experience at a similar point in time of his presidency (38 days into it). Here's a terrific article which makes the point far better than I might.

Read it and weep.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-issue112901.shtml

Dissemble all you want.

GW was just "getting used to the job"? Come on, you can do better than that. He wasn't a dishwasher at McDonalds. It's basic logic, if terrorism was so obviously a clear and present danger, then the GW admin would have jumped right into action. GW may have had close to zero experience, but he had plenty of experienced people around him.

GW didn't do a god damn thing until after 9/11. Period. I will not discuss that point further, denying that is simply blinding yourself to reality in favor of pure partisan politics.

"We conservatives knew that terrorism was a danger, and hated Clinton because he didn't do much about it. That's why when we got into office we immediately.... did nothing" Not to mention the silence from the conservative dominated congress.

Nobody thought terrorism was a huge threat, NOBODY. It wasn't until after the fact when the conservatives needed to blame somebody for 9/11 that they "found" all of this old stuff that showed they really cared about it. I was alive and aware during most of the Clinton presidency. The conservatives in congress never said a god damn thing about Terrorism.

Clinton's actions didn't come first. Al Qaeda and the focus of Islamic terror against the US came much earlier, sowed during the Soviet/Afghan war, and reaped during Gulf War 1. Gulf war 1 being the direct result of Reaganite underhanded politics. That is a different story however.

[bergshadow]

His ineffective actions came first. The American public's reaction came afterwards. Clinton did more, and more effectively, to counter Islamic terrorism than any other US President - going back to Nixon, at least. The foolish, shortsighted, treasonous, cynical, historically ignorant and utterly ineffectual behaviors of the Reagan administration were perhaps the least excusable of the lot (W's were, of course, dependent on Reagan-era advisors, who had either learned nothing or had some agenda other than countering terrorism) but no one looks better (or better, less bad) than Clinton in hindsight.

The "American public" did not react so to Clinton. The negative reaction to Clinton - anything whatsoever that he did, including such conservative-beloved enactments as NAFTA - was generated by the well-funded and consciously coordinated agents of the corporate and crackpot right. This "vast right-wing conspiracy" reaction, as it is described with sarcasm but reasonable accuracy, was not a common or street reaction by an independently informed public.
GWB was still getting used to the job and trying to establish his administration on 9/11. He was nine months into the job, not one, with extensive life-long personal experience and close family connections in national politics; he had already rejected and ignored not only Clinton administration warnings and advice but several urgent warnings by his own intelligence agencies, and was well into his program of revamping US intelligence agencies to suit the political needs of his handlers and supporters - after his vacation, of course.

And not only the inferior preparation but the panicky, embarrassing, and eventually disastrous response are at issue.

Clinton's general reputation for conduct of the nation's business (if not his own) did not suffer much during his Presidency. It has risen since, by comparison with previous and subsequent Presidential displays.

[eieio]

Dissemble all you want.

GW was just "getting used to the job"? Come on, you can do better than that. He wasn't a dishwasher at McDonalds. It's basic logic, if terrorism was so obviously a clear and present danger, then the GW admin would have jumped right into action. GW may have had close to zero experience, but he had plenty of experienced people around him.

GW didn't do a god damn thing until after 9/11. Period. I will not discuss that point further, denying that is simply blinding yourself to reality in favor of pure partisan politics.

"We conservatives knew that terrorism was a danger, and hated Clinton because he didn't do much about it. That's why when we got into office we immediately.... did nothing" Not to mention the silence from the conservative dominated congress.

Nobody thought terrorism was a huge threat, NOBODY. It wasn't until after the fact when the conservatives needed to blame somebody for 9/11 that they "found" all of this old stuff that showed they really cared about it. I was alive and aware during most of the Clinton presidency. The conservatives in congress never said a god damn thing about Terrorism.

Clinton's actions didn't come first. Al Qaeda and the focus of Islamic terror against the US came much earlier, sowed during the Soviet/Afghan war, and reaped during Gulf War 1. Gulf war 1 being the direct result of Reaganite underhanded politics. That is a different story however.


In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — made Morris's first tier.

Clinton asked Morris where he stood. "I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category," Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president's standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. "Yeah," Clinton responded, "It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it."

Clinton then asked, "What do I need to do to be first tier?" "I said, 'You can't,'" Morris remembers. "'You have to win a war.'" Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. "I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism," Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)

But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris's polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?

"He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform," Morris explains. "He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals." But there was more to it than that. "On another level, I just don't think it was his thing," Morris says. "You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you'd get was a series of grunts."

And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton's handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn't his thing. Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era. Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He's right about that, too.



From the previously listed link.

Clinton did more, and more effectively, to counter Islamic terrorism than any other US President - going back to Nixon, at least. The foolish, shortsighted, treasonous, cynical, historically ignorant and utterly ineffectual behaviors of the Reagan administration were perhaps the least excusable of the lot (W's were, of course, dependent on Reagan-era advisors, who had either learned nothing or had some agenda other than countering terrorism) but no one looks better (or better, less bad) than Clinton in hindsight.

The "American public" did not react so to Clinton. The negative reaction to Clinton - anything whatsoever that he did, including such conservative-beloved enactments as NAFTA - was generated by the well-funded and consciously coordinated agents of the corporate and crackpot right. This "vast right-wing conspiracy" reaction, as it is described with sarcasm but reasonable accuracy, was not a common or street reaction by an independently informed public.

He was nine months into the job, not one, had already rejected and ignored not only Clinton administration warnings and advice but several urgent warnings by his own intelligence agencies, and was well into his program of revamping US intelligence agencies to suit the political needs of his handlers and supporters - after his vacation, of course. And not only the inferior preparation but the panicky, embarrassing, and eventually disastrous response are at issue.

Clinton's general reputation for conduct of the nation's business (if not his own) did not suffer much during his Presidency. It has risen since, by comparison with previous and subsequent Presidential displays.

I'll find just the right quote to refute your post.

Now that I read it over, that quote above is almost perfect.