Tenth Crusade?

So, if I understand this argument correctly, it’s okay to use violence against innocents to oppose an intervention in a Muslim country.  By that rationale, it is perfectly reasonable, then, to oppose Muslim intervention in Christian countries by resort to violence against innocent Muslims, no?

More political correctness run amok.  Along with more disinformation about the connection between Islamic nutcases blowing things up and the war in Iraq.

Last I checked, they didn’t care about blowing people up for merely allying with Israel.  Even if you pull out of Iraq, that alliance remains. 

Time to stop coddling Muslims and time to start callling a spade a spade.  If Islam prevents people from engaging in non-violent political opposition, then the policies being opposed are NOT the problem; the problem is the religion doing the opposing.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article303277.ece

A senior Tory has broken ranks with his party by saying that the London suicide attacks were "totally explicable" because of the deep anger felt by many British Muslims over Iraq.

The Tory leadership distanced itself from Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney General, after he said the link between the Iraq war and the terror campaign could not be ignored.

The Government found itself under pressure over the connection yesterday as Muslim leaders told Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, of the anger felt in their community about British foreign policy. They also said that disproportionate targeting of Asians by police under stop-and-search powers threatened to stoke up resentment among Muslims. Interviewed on Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Grieve said: "I have to say, I find the suicide bombing totally explicable in terms of the level of anger which many members of the Muslim community seem to have about a large number of things.

…

Mr Grieve added: "I’m sure that something like the Iraq war contributes to it, because after all the Iraq war is about the intervention of Western countries in a state that is seen as being essentially Muslim."

A Tory spokesman said Mr Grieve was expressing a "personal view", adding: "It’s not necessarily shared by other members of the Shadow Cabinet."

Asked if she agreed with Mr Grieve, Ms Blears said: "No, I don’t. I think people can fundamentally disagree with policy issues, with foreign policy … but I don’t see any justification for people blowing themselves up and murdering hundreds of other people."

… "I don’t think we should be ruling out anybody in terms of how you exercise stop-and-search powers. You could equally have white people who could be the subject of intelligence you get. Just picking up people on the basis that they are Muslims is never going to get the results you want."

Follow-up on the Michael Graham commentary. 

Looks like CAIR has got not a few ties to terrorists around the world.  http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/07/the_american_is.html#more

If the shoe bomber fits…

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=51087

WASHINGTON, July 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today applauded a Washington, D.C., radio station’s decision to suspend without pay a talk show host who stated repeatedly that "Islam is a terrorist organization."

CAIR said WMAL-AM morning host Michael Graham should be fired for his Islamophobic remarks, for other statements made before and after the most recent controversy and for his refusal to apologize for those comments.

The Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group this week initiated a public campaign against WMAL and the station’s advertisers after receiving complaints from Muslim listeners who heard Graham state: 1. "Islam is a terrorist organization." 2. "Islam is at war with America." 3. "The problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam." 4. "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."

Other listeners said that Graham even encouraged a public "backlash" against Muslims. (Graham later claimed he meant a backlash of social pressure, not violent attack on Muslims.) In response to his suspension, the Washington Post quoted Graham as saying, "I will not recant."

When first contacted by CAIR, WMAL stood behind Graham, but changed its position after hundreds of people responded to the group’s action alerts by contacting the station and its sponsors. In a statement, WMAL President and General Manager Chris Berry said that Graham would be suspended for statements that "crossed the line." "We do not condone his position and believe his statements were irresponsible," said Berry. (WMAL is owned by the Walt Disney Co.)

"We believe the station’s actions are appropriate, if long overdue," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "It is time for WMAL to distance itself and its advertisers from bigotry by making Graham’s suspension permanent."

Last year, CAIR challenged on-air remarks by Graham that seemed to make an implicit call for violence against Muslims. He said: "I don’t wanna say we should kill ‘em all (Muslims), but unless there’s reform (within Islam), there aren’t a lot of other solutions that work in the ground struggle for survival." (Graham later claimed he was only referring to so-called "Islamists," but the context of the quote indicated otherwise.)

There are two ways to help criminals.  To actively encourage and aid them and, the second, to passively encourage them by tolerating their presence in your midst.  Islam is doing both.

It reminds me of the mothers who are interviewed by the press after their fatherless children have just committed some heinous gang-related killing.  "It couldn’t be my boy.  My boy’s a good boy."

Ignorance is bliss, perhaps.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/graham072805.php3

I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. 

But it is the plain truth:   Islam is a terror organization.

For years, I’ve been trying to give the world’s Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, along with the benefit of my typical-American’s complete disinterest in their faith. Before 9/11, I knew nothing about Islam except the greeting "asalaam alaikum," taught to me by a Pakistani friend in Chicago.

Immediately after 9/11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that "Islam is a religion of peace."

But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean "nobody."

Certainly not the group of "moderate" Muslim clerics and imams who gathered in London last week to issue a statement on terrorism and their faith. When asked the question "Are suicide bombings always a violation of Islam," they could not answer "Yes. Always." Instead, these "moderate British Muslims" had to answer "It depends."

Precisely what it depends on, news reports did not say. Sadly, given our new knowledge of Islam from the past four years, it probably depends on whether or not you’re killing Jews.

That is part of the state of modern Islam. …

… And the reason Islam has itself become a terrorist organization is that it cannot address its own role in this violence. It cannot cast out the murderers from its members. I know it can’t, because "moderate" Muslim imams keep telling me they can’t. "We have no control over these radical young men," one London imam moaned to the local papers.

Can’t kick ‘em out of your faith? Can’t excommunicate them? Apparently Islam does not allow it.

Islam cannot say that terrorism is forbidden to Muslims. I know this because when the world’s Muslim nations gathered after 9/11 to state their position on terrorism, they couldn’t even agree on what it was. How could they, when the world’s largest terror sponsors at the time were Iran and Saudi Arabia  —  both governed by Islamic law.

If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder  —  and the scoutmasters in charge simply said "Could be"  —  the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago.

Today, Islam has entire sects and grand mosques that preach terror. Its theology is used as a source of inspiration by terrorist murderers. Millions of Islam’s members give these killers support and comfort.

The question isn’t how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not.

I’ve got about as much faith in appeals to "Islamic duty" as I do in Santa Claus.  "Suicide is forbidden in Islam."  "Killing civilians is forbidden in Islam."  "Terrorism is forbidden in Islam."  Whatever.

Actions speak louder than words.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8545556/

LONDON - For years, radical Islamic activists have operated freely in Britain, raising money for their cause, beaming satellite TV spots or running Internet sites condemning America in support of al-Qaida.

But even supporters of Osama bin Laden’s ideology say the London bombings were the wrong thing to do.

"The goal here was illegitimate," said activist Yasser al-Sirri….

Al-Sirri, head of the Islamic Observation Center, said Muslims who live in Britain — even those who consider the host government their enemy — have an Islamic duty under an unwritten "security covenant" to obey the country’s rules.

His comments suggest a possible split within Britain’s radical Islamic community about how to wage the struggle against the West — through terrorism like Thursday’s bombings or through psychological warfare as well as violence only in clearly defined combat zones.

"God says if anyone wants to do something (against the country), he must leave that country and fight them outside. … He can go to Iraq and fight the American forces there, or British forces, but he shouldn’t (kill British civilians). What’s the fault of the civilians?" said al-Sirri, an Egyptian accused by the United States of sponsoring terrorism in Afghanistan.

He said Islam puts limits on the form and extent of jihad, or holy war, one can wage. Many Britain-based Islamic radicals also fear the attacks will lead to a crackdown that will prevent them from operating freely.

And, I’m sure that Washington is in a HUGE hurry to help the Turks, considering all the help they gave the United States a couple of years ago.  You couldn’t be bothered when we asked for your help.  Why the hell should we help you now?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4725515.stm

Turkey has repeated calls for US forces to take direct action to stop Kurdish rebels, the PKK, using bases in Iraq to launch attacks against Turkey.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said there was a limit to Turkey’s tolerance and suggested that if the US did not respond, Turkey would. …

But Mr Erdogan told The Times newspaper, during a visit to London, that he expected nothing short of direct intervention. At the moment, he said, Turkey did not see the effort by Washington that it expected and had expressed that view to the Americans.

There was a limit to Ankara’s tolerance, he said - Turkey was within its rights under international law to defend itself from attack.

Kind of a pain in the ass when faceless groups of people hate you for no good reason, isn’t it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4723339.stm

…  The total number of "faith-related" attacks reported across London rose 500% compared with the same period last year, the Muslim Safety Forum says.

… "People are going to fight back."

Islamic Human Rights Commission chairman Massoud Shadjareh is monitoring the number attacks on Asian people not reported to the police.

He told BBC News the commission was "extremely concerned at the escalation of backlash attacks against Muslims since 7/7".

"Normally we get something in the region of between six and seven every week.

"Now in less than two weeks we have had 170 reported to us alone."

The attacks, across the whole of the UK, covered "everything" from verbal abuse and spitting to arson, Mr Shadjareh added.

Nine mosques had been attacked, a garage firebombed, people assaulted in the street, and homes had had their windows broken, he told BBC News.

"It is really very worrying."

Setting yourself on fire?!  Further evidence, it appears, that we’re not dealing with "rational" actors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4725615.stm

A Yemeni cleric who claimed to have ties with Osama Bin Laden has been sentenced to 75 years in prison in New York.

Sheikh Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad was convicted on charges of conspiring to support the al-Qaeda network and Palestinian militant group Hamas.

At a meeting with two FBI informants in Germany, he was recorded promising to funnel more than $2m (£1.1m) to Hamas.

He was arrested by German police in January 2003 and extradited to the US. …

Witness sets himself on fire

One of the informants in the case, Mohamed Alanssi, set himself on fire outside the White House in November 2004.

He had complained about his treatment by the FBI after helping with several investigations.

At the trial, he testified as a hostile witness for the defence after prosecutors declined to put him on the stand.

Moayad was found guilty in March along with his aide, Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed, another Yemeni.

Sure, they could be "innocent passengers" but the odds are that they are murdering scumbags who need a good beat-down.  How about this:  turn yourself in and we’ll find out if you’re "innocent".  I didn’t see that option in this jackass’ tirade against Muslim-bashers.

"Terrorists can be anybody" means "you have no evidence it was us."  It, notably, does not mean "We’re innocent."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/28/nas28.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/28/ixnewstop.html

… The most senior Islamic cleric in Birmingham claimed yesterday that Muslims were being unjustly blamed in the war on terrorism and that the eight suspects in the two bombing attacks on London "could have been innocent passengers". …

"Muslim bashing seems to be more earnest than the need for national unity and harmony. Terrorists can be anybody - we will have to see [whether the bombers are Muslims]. The process is not open; the process is not transparent; the process is not independent. I do not have faith in the system as it stands."

Mr Naseem is one of the most respected Muslims in the city and is considered a moderate. He has regular meetings with the chief constable to discuss religious harmony.

Mr Naseem said that while it was vital that terrorism was stamped out and that there was never any justification for it, the Government had not helped by going to war in Iraq.

Dismissing the Prime Minister’s insistence that the war had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, he said: "Tony Blair … is not going to be perceived as a reliable witness. His comments could motivate someone to take the law into his own hands.

"Some people have been caught but I have not seen any evidence. The process of law is not open."

Asked about the suspects’ DNA being found at the scene of the first attacks, he said: "DNA can match you, but that does not mean you are going to commit a crime. Thousands of youths are passing by and caught on CCTV, so how do you know it is them?"

He added: "We must rely upon trust that we have between communities.

"We must remain united in the fight against terrorism but the process should be independent and open, not like the Hutton inquiry, not like the Lord Butler inquiry." And, in an editorial in The Dawn, the central mosque’s newsletter, Mr Naseem writes: "Where is the evidence that four youths whose pictures were caught on CCTV cameras…were the perpetrators? How did we reject the possibility they were just innocent victims of this terrible happening? They had bought return train tickets."

Somebody’s in dire need of a bullet in the head.  See below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/27/wgogh27.xml&sSh

… Khalil el-Yobari, 30, a shopkeeper, echoed the sergeant’s defence of the Netherlands as a place to build a peaceful life. But he felt there had been a big change for Muslims. "People don’t talk to us in the street any more," he said.

His friends yearned to attack Israel or America, he said matter-of-factly, but he condemned terrorism in Europe. He combined praise for the Netherlands with nostalgia for the good life he felt ended with September 11.

"Before that attack, Amsterdam was OK," he said. "Now it is very difficult to find a job as a Moroccan, even with school diplomas."

He condemned Bouyeri’s crime, saying that Mr van Gogh had had every right to say what he liked without being attacked. "It’s a free country," he said.

But he reported bitter debate among his friends about the case and gave warning that the case had added to Muslim anger about racism at home, as well as the situation in Iraq and the Middle East.

"Dutch people hate Muslims," he said. "One survey said 56 per cent say that. We all feel we are in prison now. I have friends who tell me they want to fight."

He rejected London-style attacks in Holland because innocent people had been killed. But, without any evident pleasure at the thought, he predicted that home-grown terrorism would hit the Netherlands.

"It is going to happen - and it will be from people like me," he said.