Feb 09 2007
Jihad Comes To The UK
Yesterday I posted on the blatant brutality that is Islamo Fascism and how it expresses itself in Iraq. I used this example to illustrate why we cannot run from Iraq and allow Islamo Fascism a base of operations in Iraq from which to bring Jihad to the West. Now we have reports out of the UK that even with al Qaeda forces fighting us in Iraq, the Jihad is spreading to the west. The first story concerns the round up of the shock troops, charged with the mission to behead muslims who are in the military:
One of the men arrested in terror raids in Birmingham last week has been today charged with plotting to kidnap and kill a British Army soldier.
Parviz Khan, 36, was this morning charged with an offence in “engaging in conduct to give effect to his intention to kidnap and kill a member of the Armed Forces”, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) confirmed.
The reported plan was to kidnap and behead a Muslim soldier and video tape the act as a warning of things to come for other Muslims who fight for their country instead of their religion. The second story concerns the capture of the ‘religious leader’ for this clear act of war:
A British Muslim convert widely known for extremist outbursts was arrested Thursday for allegedly encouraging terrorism, police said.
The Metropolitan Police gave no details about what prompted the arrest of Abu Izzadeen, saying it came “as a result of an ongoing inquiry” under anti-terrorism laws.
…
Earlier this week, Britain’s ITV News claimed to have obtained a clip from a password-protected Web site showing a 2004 speech by Izzadeen in which he called for the beheading of any Muslim who joins the British army.
Make no mistake about it, the Islamo Fascists are still trying to get back on the offensive and destroy the West. The problem we have is these Jihadists are gaining acceptance partially, if not primarily, because Western liberal elites are spending all their energies attacking their conservative political opponents they are missing the clear signals coming from our mortal enemies. While liberals rant and rave about President Bush the Islamo Fascists use their cover to gain time to plot and a modicum of acceptance. How could Islamo Fascists be so bad when liberals are raving about the evil Bushitler?
The problem is not President Bush or Iraq. The problem is the Islamo facists did not buckle under our initial responses. The Islamo Fascist movement predates Bush by many years, probably going back to the disasterous Carter years. It culminated in a stab at the very heart of the West on 9-11-01. President Bush simply responded with an overwhelming attack at the heart of Islamo Fascism, in the hope of dealing it a crippling blow. The fact is, the Islamo Fascism problem is too spread out and deep to falter after just one blow. Just like its predecessor the Nazis where not going to be routed by taking Italy, the modern butchers of humanity are not going to retreat with our blows to Iraq and Afgahnistan.
This is not the fault of President Bush. He did not create the Islamo Fascists, he simply took them on and exposed the true depth of their threat. We cannot afford to let Islamo Fascism take hold in Iraq. These evil descendants of Hitler’s Nazis would torture and rape a baby on TV if it suited them. There is negotiation to be had here. There is no common ground. The handwringers say there is no way to win – but there must be because that means there is no way to survive.
Liberals are afraid to face the enemy. After years of disinterest and ignoring the warning signs they are desparate to get back into their little cacoons watching fantasies on TV in the hopes they can shut out the ugly reality of Islamo Fascism. Why doesn’t the media report on the al Qaeda act of tying children to their decapitated parent’s bodies and throwing them in a river to drown? Why? Because it would ruin the facade, the fantasy of returning to the blissful 1990’s cannot withstand such imagery. And I would gather there are plenty more examples of Islamo Fascist brutality than the one I posted yesterday.
Forget about avoiding this fight. The Islamo Fascists are not backing down despite our efforts to track them down and ‘bring them to justice’. This is not a failure by President Bush or our military. It is an indication of the tenacity of our enemies. It is an indication of how dangerous this threat is. They are moving into the West as we pressure them in their homeland. We have responded with a massive thrust at their heart and have our hands around their necks, but they are still flailing away and trying to divert our attention or will to win. All the while the liberal elite are screaming for us to let them up and start all over again.
Islamo Fascism is on the move despite our efforts to date. So we must redouble our efforts. But there is no peace coming our way, not for now. And pretending we can pull one out of this situation is dangerously naive. Our enemies are still out there plotting ways to horrify us and make us flinch. They want us to cower so they can regain their momentum. These people (and it is a stretch to call these animals ‘people’) are not interested in coexistence or peace. They simply want us destroyed. It is time the world woke up from its confusion and stop blaming Bush for exposing what is going on here. He is not causing the problem, he is protecting us from the brunt of it.
This “spread” should come as no surprise to you, based on CIA reports issued since the Iraq occupation. They clearly said US
presence was fueling, not stemming worldwide jihad growth. You might consider this, even when you boast about a puported
killing, wounding or capturing of a jihadist of any stripe in Iraq.
Kill one, five more join worldwide.
These reports, together with the Iraq Study group suggest the
best way to stem jihad is ,negotiate with Iran and Syria, gain a
fair settlement for the Palestinians and methodically move out
of Iraq. All anathematic to the neocon dominated Bush administration.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB10Ak08.html
Michael Scheuer , leading expert on al Qaeda , speaks today
at Asia Times. Two lessons: Bush’s Iraq invasion combined with
lack of border protection, (Iraq’s, Afghanistan’s…ours) has
weakened our position vis a vis AQ since 2001. Al Qaeda does not wish to use Iraq itself as a springboard to attack America thus our staying or leaving makes no difference from that vantage, but it prefers we stay –and “bleed.”
lassoingtruth ,
It seems that you have bought into the thesis of Michael Scheuer, who maintains that Islamic terrorists are just reacting to America’s over-reaching and if we would but leave them alone, everything would be swell.
What part of a Pan Islamic empire, possessing WMDs, appeals to you?
Human reason should lead one to see the good in removing the terrorist apparatus in Afghanistan that struck us and in removing the genocidal regime in Iraq that had proven WMD programs with intentions to make them and proven Al Qaeda ties.
Human reason should lead one to see the good in helping these countries form consensual governments in a region where the lack of human liberty is fueling the horrors we are seeing.
I suggest that you re-examine your assumptions.
I wasn’t aware that Scheuer opposed the action in Afghanistan,
don’t believe so. But to your main point, when you get past the
neocons–the American neocons- you will not find any strategic
expert or politico here or in the world who believes that al Qaeda
can establish a Pan Islamic caliphate, regardless of whether
America continues its “war on terror” or not. Help reduce
American influence in Islamic regions of the world, yes, cause
problems short of installing a “caliphate” in Europe, yes, but
create a pan-Islamic caliphate, hardly.
That said, returning to the neocons, al Qaeda also can
harm their favored nation in the Mideast, which explains much
of their hyperbole.
lassoingtruth,
Are we to infer that “neocons” are on your least favored list?
Al Qaeda had already subsumed Afghanistan. With Islamic thug regimes all over the ME, and Suunis and Shiites willing to cooperate, an Islamic ME empire could become a reality without Al Qaeda control. Then it would have tentacles in Europe, Africa and Asia and the means to finance its expansion.
What is it about consensual government that you object to?
“Al Qaeda had already subsumed Afghanistan.”
Yeah, with US intervention’s help, but then the excuse was to fight Soviet influence in Afghansitan. Chickens come home to roost.
Sunnis and Shiites do not believe in the same form of Islamic goverment. Their co-operation would be limited to driving American influence out of their region, and as we see in Iraq, they are not even co-operating there very well,then they would turn on each other.
You simply, like most Americans, have never studied the Islamic worlds politics nor how they relate to religion in depth. Now, having not done this you have the option of believing the polls taken of
masses of citizens in the Moslem countries. Few of these
citizens want a pan-Islamic, nation-destroying government. Most of these citizens blame US intrusion into their lands for any popularity
pan-Islamic jihadists have. No intrusion, no bases, no overthrowing governments (eg Iran’s Mossadeh in 1953,replacing him with the hated Shah) no funding puppet candidates in Moslem elections,
much less jihad membership—and that membership would of course
focus on Europe ,China and Africa for its battles rather than
American towers.
What is it about staying in our hemisphere and addressing our own concerns voluntarily before disaster forces us to, do you object to?
lassoingtruth,
I believe the election “polls” taken in liberated Iraq. Its turnout exceeded ours. Remember the inked fingers?
Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda before we got there. Our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with Terrorism in Somalia, Darfur, West Bank, Lebanon,etc. To blame America is to deliberately look past the real cause.
Trotting out the Shah and our opposition to the Soviets in Afghanistan is a tiresome ploy with no relevance.
My problems didn’t originate in my hemisphere. And years of neglect by governments hoping only for “stability” allowed the problems to fester and metastasize. If we were to abandon the Iraqi, Afghani and Israeli peoples, a nightmare would ensue and we would be the monsters we were in abandoning South Vietnam.
Not on my conscience, thank you.
lassoingtruth,
I believe the election “polls” taken in liberated Iraq. Its turnout exceeded ours. Remember the inked fingers?
Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda before we got there. Our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with the terrorism in Somalia, Darfur, West Bank, Lebanon,etc. So, to blame America, is to deliberately look past the real cause.
And trotting out the Shah and our opposition to the Soviets in Afghanistan is a tiresome ploy with no relevance.
You still seem to have an allergy to consensual governments in the ME?
My problems didn’t originate in my hemisphere. And years of neglect by governments hoping only for “stability” allowed the problems to fester and metastasize. If we were to abandon the Iraqi, Afghani and Israeli peoples, a nightmare would ensue and we would be the monsters we were in abandoning South Vietnam.
Not on my conscience, thank you.
Too bad “lasso-ing-the-truth” has blinders on. Unfortunately, there’s many like him – many of our leading politicians & news reporters – who parrot the same script.
I agree completely Macker. And did you catch the end of his post? Bascially, we should be content to stay home and not confront any of our adversaries unless & until we get attacked on our homeland. Scary.
Macker
You are living in the past. The Iraqis have long since lost faith
in the government after giving it a chance to restore stability.
Moreover the people had voted for ethnic/religious slates, not
individual candidates.
No , Feith used lies about Saddam’s ties with al Qaeda. There were none, other than those manufactured by the neocon lobby
sometimes working with Iranian double agents like Chalabi.
Why did the protestors in Lebanon denounce US occupation of Iraq and call their president a US puppet if US intervention in the Mideast has nothing to do with Lebanon’s problem–but Condi Rice’s go ahead to Israel’sincursion was quite enough to throw Christians (Aoun’s men) into the’ Hezbollah camp as well as turning them against America.
Yes when we leave, much more violence will likely ensue, but
we are incapable of stifling it anyway. The longer we stay the
longer it is merely delayed. The US name is mud in the
Middle East and perhaps the silver lining in the Iraq bloodbath
which we set in motion is, America will not intrude again
with a heavy hand in the Middle East, realizing how hated and
unneeded it is there outside of Israeli boundaries.
Lassoing,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Accordingly, I offer the following:
•E Morrissey on CQ summarizes my views on the IG report and Douglas Feith:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009126.php
•Steven hayes has researched the Iraq/ Al Qaeda connections more thoroughly than anyone I’ve seen:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
• My gut tells me that DOS/CIA/MSM scheming cost Chalabi his credibility.
• “You are living in the past. The Iraqis have long since lost faith
in the government” –
I believe the elections were in 2005 and the government has been in power less than a year, from May, 2006.
•True, they voted for slates and now have a coalition government.
• Christians in Labanon are becoming fewer and fewer due to Hezbollah and Syria.
• “Yes when we leave, much more violence will likely ensue”…….”and perhaps the silver lining in the Iraq bloodbath which we set in motion” –
I see no silver lining in deserting these long suffering people and leaving them to a fate infinitely worse than the present.
Please don’t cut off quotes in mid-sentence. Hayes’ work has been
discredited, and to save time , perhaps the decisive Cliff Notes proof of that is Bush himself won’t go near using it’s “facts.”
You might be interested that Doug Feith has long been associated with the Israeli ultra-right, and has reccommended ethnic cleansing, i.e. mass expulsion of Palestinians . Just the kind of dual loyalist who
should be trusted with any kind of influential U.S. Mideast policy concern. Funny this escaped the capn’s notice. His blanket criticism
of the CIA has been undercut by Tyler Drumheller , Ray McGovern,
James Bamford, Paul Pillar. There is much evidence of undue
pressure to modify reports emanating from Cheney and cherrypicking out that which did not fit an already determined policy.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel12feb12,0,1642172.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Feith lies on Fox today, Larry Johnson catches him.
Lasso,
Steve Hayes has not been discredited. Did you read the 9-11 commission report? I didn’t think so. If you did, you would know that it acknowledged many meetings between Al Qaeda & Iraqis. The conclusion was simply that there was no hard evidence to link Saddam & Iraq to the 9-11 operations. After 9-11, why do you choose to remain dismissive and ignorant?
“Meetings” mean n-o-t-h-i-ng-why, the US used to meet with
Syria and Iran (and the Baker Group warned the neocons they
better revert to doing so) without ever bending (unfortunately)
to their requests.
I am not “DISMISSIVE” . The US avoids another 9/11 by reducing its
offensive policies in the Mideast. You must want more
animosity and hatred directed at us.