Libyan Muslim Declaration a Model for Islamic Nations

As reported by Reuters today, a coalition of Libyan Muslim leaders has issued a declaration that it is the duty of all Libyan Muslims to rebel against Libyan Government leaders because of their "bloody crimes against humanity."  The language of the declaration is noteworthy because of its potential ideological applicability to citizens of all Islamist governments that foment violence or support radical Islamist groups, such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others.

Here is the statement against the Libyan government:

They have demonstrated total arrogant impunity and continued, and even intensified, their bloody crimes against humanity. They have thereby demonstrated total infidelity to the guidance of God and His beloved Prophet (peace be upon him).  This renders them undeserving of any obedience or support, and makes rebelling against them by all means possible a divinely ordained duty.

This statement is equal parts powerful and muddled.  When applied by Libyan Muslims to violent elements within their own government, it is a call to revolution, directly stating that because the government uses violence ("bloody crimes against humanity"), the government is unfaithful to the teachings of Islam and is thus unworthy of allegiance or obedience from its people.  However, when applied to eliminating radical Islamist terrorists from Muslim nations, bold statements such as this one are few and far between.

When taken at face value, the statement from the Network of Free Ulema of Libya could be applied to al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and hundreds of other terrorist organizations worldwide.  They commit "bloody crimes against humanity", such as bombing hotels, pizza parlors, World Trade Center towers, and lines of civilians waiting to vote in democratic elections.  Does this not demonstrate"total infidelity to the guidance of God" as the Libyan Muslim leaders imply?  Or is it only infidelity to Muslim principles when violence is used on other Muslims?  Are non-Muslim peoples part of "humanity", thus violence against them makes the group who brought the violence undeserving of obedience or support from other Muslims?


The Libyan Muslim leaders made a bold and laudable declaration, removing any sense of guilt Libyans might have about protesting and physically rebelling against their government.  The logic of the statement is reflective of the language set forth in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which presented a list of grievous acts committed by King George that rendered the Crown undeserving of any further allegiance from the Colonials.  In any revolutionary movement, it is critical to keep the government's sins in the forefront of popular memory.  By removing any religious hesitations Libyans may have because of their Islamic beliefs in obedience to government, the Network of Free Ulema of Libya makes the revolution's success more likely.  For those Muslims who adhere to this declaration, it has become religious duty to rebel in every way possible.  Gaddafi's guns, tanks, helicopters, and brutality will be no match for a united people who view it as their divinely ordained duty to rebel against him and remove the current government from power.


Capital Cloak applauds the statement from this coalition of Libyan Muslim leaders.  Now, if only more Muslim leaders worldwide would be similarly outspoken about the infidelity to God and his Prophet displayed by Islamic terrorist groups who have been killing through "bloody crimes against humanity" for decades.  If such statements are not issued, the non-Muslim peoples of the world are left with little doubt that they are not considered part of "humanity" by their Muslim friends and neighbors.

"Spread Democracy" or "Spread the Wealth" Revolutions?

Before stepping down as Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak had harsh words for the Obama administration's vocal support for democracy movements in Egypt, Tunisia, and the entire Middle East.  Mubarak warned former Israeli cabinet minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer:

We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that's the fate of the Middle East.  They may be talking about democracy but they don't know what they're talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam.

Ben-Eliezer told Haaretz that on the eve of Mubarak's stepping down as Egypt's President, Mubarak shared his prediction for what will follow in the Middle East:

He contended the snowball (of civil unrest) won't stop in Egypt and it wouldn't skip any Arab country in the Middle East and in the Gulf.  He said 'I won't be surprised if in the future you see more extremism and radical Islam and more disturbances -- dramatic changes and upheavals'.

Will Mubarak's warning prove prophetic, or was it merely the parting bluster of a man who believed, with good reason, that he alone held the religious radicals in his nation at bay for more than 30 years?  Events in other Arab nations offer an immediate opportunity to observe the accuracy of Mubarak's predictions.  In Yemen and Algeria, protests are creating fertile ground for radical Islamist elements to merge their long-term goals with the short-term protesters' goals of toppling their existing governments. 

Photo by Reuters

When the many thousands of Algerian protesters claim they are marching for liberty and freedom, are they actually demanding self-determination - a worthy goal consistent with America's democratic values - or are they seeking to level the economic or social playing field because others within their culture have more opportunity and wealth?  Reports out of Algiers suggest that many ingredients that led to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt are also influencing the street protests in Algeria: (1) high unemployment; (2) Growing gap between rich and poor; and (3) large and restless youth population.  All of these ingredients, if not also motivated by a desire for self-determination and common law, will lead to the same half-baked confection: redistribution of wealth, and, in the case of the French and Soviet revolutions, purging of the wealthy and influential classes in mass bloodshed.

At this point, the ultimate goals and democratic desires of the Algerian and Yemeni protesters remains undefined and frighteningly fluid.  Protests nearly always begin by riding rapidly on a wave of emotion that crests when it appears the initially specific goal has been reached.  In Egypt's case, that initial specific goal was to oust Mubarak.  That goal has now been reached, but what goals beyond the ouster do the protesters have in common?  Iraq proved that toppling a dictator and gleeful celebrations are not the end of political upheaval.  The devil is in the details, and the "details" that established a democratically elected government in Baghdad included much bloodshed, radical Islamist terrorism to discourage the people, and eventually a constitution.  The purple-stained index fingers of voting Iraqis came with a price paid long after the statues of Saddam Hussein were jubilantly dismantled. 

In the absence of clear leadership among protest groups, confusion mounts as to the way forward in the vacuum left by the toppling of an existing government.  In Egypt, the "details" remain to be determined, but Mubarak is likely right that many devils, as it were, will work feverishly to gain strong footholds in vulnerable political climates.  Protesters in Yemen and Algeria face a similar conundrum.  Calling for "government reform" is ambiguous, carrying very different connotations for the myriad largely incompatible political, social, and religious groups united for one moment in time for the sake of "change." 

The Obama administration is in a difficult position.  The world expects America to support democracy and democratic revolutions wherever they arise.  However, the administration must recognize its limitations and avoid knee-jerk support to civil unrest, or "change" for the sake of "change", before gaining a clear understanding of the forces and motives behind Middle East protests.  Revolutions can become ugly very quickly if they are engaged in for societal or economic leveling rather than for constitutional freedoms and protection of inalienable rights. 

The governments in Algeria and Yemen are currently in a dangerous state of vulnerability.  Yemen has been a strategic ally of the United States in the War on Terror.  That term is not popular in the Obama administration, which took office pledging to purge all things Bush.  However, President Obama has slowly recognized when faced with stark reality, that this IS still a war against terrorist ideology.  In war, key allies should not be abandoned at the first opportunity, even if standing with the ally means ignoring its warts and impurities.  Stalin was murdering millions of his own countrymen before, during, and after, WWII, but in the larger was against a radical ideology, the United States turned a blind eye to Stalin's atrocities because the war against Hitler could not be won without him.  By its strategic location and past assistance in identifying and locating terror suspects and operational networks, overlooking Yemeni President Saleh's imperfections may prove the best course for America's interests in a larger struggle against radical Islam.  America's presidents are elected to serve and protect the interests of America, even if that means that at times we form temporary alliances with unsavory or even oppressive governments.  Even in these cases, however, we must never cease encouraging even the most bloodthirsty dictators or regimes to reform.




Mubarak's prediction of a snowball of unrest in the Middle East, that will leave no country untouched, is, in my estimation, accurate.  Radical Islamists will undoubtedly attempt to fill power vacuums throughout the region, attempting to expand their spheres of influence.  President Obama must walk a fine line between encouraging freedom and democratic reforms, as he must, while holding onto key alliances in the War on Terror. 

Timing is Everything in Middle East Revolutionary Uprisings

Is it mere coincidence that revolutionary uprisings bearing high global stakes seem to occur when the U.S. is led by foreign policy-weak Democratic Presidents and Secretaries of State?  Jimmy Carter never saw the Ayatollah Khoemeni and his radical Islamic followers for what they were, and as a result, Iran never attained freedom and democracy that seemed possible when the initial protests against the Shah began.  The product of Carter's waffling was a radical Islamist state bent on Israel's destruction and supplying anti-American terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East to the present day.

Today we see the same thing happening in Egypt.  What may have begun as an uprising against Mubarak and for freedoms and democracy is rapidly being hijacked by Islamic radicals, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood.  Intel experts worldwide have long identified the Brotherhood as a spawner of terrorist organizations, with ties to everyone from Hizbollah to al Qaeda.  Yesterday, President Obama described the Muslim Brotherhood as a political entity in Egypt that should have a say in the future governance of that nation.  President Obama is on the same floundering path that Jimmy Carter trod on the way to losing Iran, perhaps forever, to radical, Israel-threatening Islamists.

This column in the Washington Post warns that George W. Bush was right about supporting true democracy in the Middle East and that its peoples have an inborn desire for freedom  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803144.html.  What freedoms will the Muslim Brotherhood establish or protect?

It is most unfortunate that the revolutionary spirit and uprisings for freedom in Iran and Egypt did not occur when Presidents were in office who could see groups like the Muslim Brotherhood for what they are, terrorist sponsors and suppliers.  The Democrats thought George W. was a pie in the sky dreamer, or worse, for his fundamental belief that freedom and democracy in the Middle East is the long-term solution to global terrorism.  Now, when given an opportunity to further democracy in Egypt, President Obama ignores the lessons of the past and embraces a radical Islamist group hijacking a revolution and steering it toward Iran part II.

Similar revolutionary uprisings are sprouting in Jordan. Lebanon appears to have already been lost to Hizbollah rule, controlled by Iran and Syria.  If President Obama fails to stand with true revolutionaries for democracy in Egypt, and perhaps eventually in Jordan, against radical Islamist takeover, the ability to act will be taken from him just as it was from Jimmy Carter as he meekly allowed Iran to be taken hostage by Islamic militants, along with the ill-fated U.S. Embassy staff.

Pakistan a Moderate Muslim Test Case

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf could not have been more clear: "We are in direct confrontation with the extremist forces - it is moderates versus extremists." Yet instead of being encouraged by Musharraf's newly launched war to reform Islam from within, Lee Hamilton, former 9/11 Commission and Iraq Study Group member, recommended that the U.S. strike at al Qaeda in its Pakistani mountain safe haven on the Afghanistan border without Musharraf's consent. Hamilton cited several good reasons for taking unilateral action, specifically the importance of keeping al Qaeda on the run and unable to replenish itself. Hamilton also expressed evident disdain for Musharraf's insistence that Pakistani military forces conduct all raids against radical Islamist groups operating in Pakistan, an arrangement that Hamilton described as unacceptable. Hamilton joined Fox News Military analyst Colonel David Hunt in the "Musharraf is not our friend" chorus, and if Americans continue to sing that tune long and loudly enough, we will soon find few friends among the moderate Muslim leaders of the world.

Hamilton and Col. Hunt want what we all want: to see al Qaeda hunted down ruthlessly in their mountain sanctuaries as a deterrent to the rest of the world's radical Islamic terrorists and their potential recruits. The problem is that both men are fixated on the American "right" to conduct military operations within Pakistan even though Pakistan's moderate Muslim president and military leader has declared war on the extremists in his own nation and has now promised to confront radical Islamists in every corner of Pakistan.

Of course we want to strike al Qaeda, but doing so unilaterally without the consent of the president of the world's only Muslim nuclear nation would send precisely the wrong message to Muslims everywhere. Americans complain that not enough moderate Muslims are working to reform Islam by confronting its extremists, yet when we find one who happens to be a powerful figure with control of a small nuclear arsenal, Hamilton and Col. Hunt question his friendship and urge our leaders to ignore Musharraf's promise to purge the terrorists internally. Either we want Islam to reform itself or we don't. Hamilton and Col. Hunt cannot have it both ways.

I wrote previously about Musharraf's need for sovereignty, further postulating that the United States would never allow a foreign military to conduct strikes within our borders, as we would, like Musharraf, exercise our sovereignty and insist that our military remove the enemy from within our borders. It is no small matter for a president to permit a foreign military to cross his nation's borders and attack members, albeit radical ones, of his national religion. Therein lays the danger inherent in circumventing Musharraf's authority. His decision to publicly distinguish between moderate and extreme Islam, and further vow to "fight against extremism and terrorism no matter what province," has worsened his already precarious political position because a long-term battle against terrorists in Pakistan will require Musharraf to not relinquish command of the Pakistani military, a power he has personally retained despite calls for separation of his political and military role as President-General. Musharraf's military command, if he continues on the moderate path, is of great benefit to global security, as he keeps nuclear weapons in moderate hands.

Meanwhile, radicals within Pakistan salivate at the prospect of electing a president who shares their views and might use that arsenal to intimidate or annihilate their enemies. America finds itself in the position of having a moderate Muslim president-military dictator as perhaps its most valuable and vulnerable ally in the War on Terror.

Musharraf has successfully remained in power because of his strong hold on Pakistan's military establishment, though he faces danger in that realm from radical infiltration. If the United States were to ignore Musharraf's sovereign authority and send our military to conduct operations within Pakistan, it would directly challenge the one core strength he possesses: electorates rarely choose to change leaders in war time or when military confrontation is imminent. A U.S. strike, rather than a sustained Pakistani operation, would convince Pakistanis that Musharraf did not wield any international influence and could be replaced, since the U.S. would have shown little regard for whomever was Pakistan's president by handling the matter unilaterally. Musharraf is receiving criticism from every political party in Pakistan, some opposing his combative stance against radical Islam, and others decrying his determination to run for re-election without relinquishing control of the military.

Impatience is our sorest affliction in Iraq, as the House and Senate worked feverishly and at least for one night, sleeplessly, to withdraw from Iraq long before the full results of the surge strategy can be evaluated. That same impatience must not dictate precipitous U.S. action in Pakistan before allowing Musharraf's confrontation strategy to yield tangible results. Arguably the most militarily and politically powerful moderate Muslim in the world, Musharraf embodies the great question the non-Muslim world wants answered: Is Islam truly a moderate religion of peace, or does radical Islam hold sway in the hearts and minds of the majority?

If Musharraf's declared war against extremism within Islam succeeds in Pakistan, it would set a precedent to be followed in Muslim nations worldwide. If it is also true that moderate Muslims live in fear of the radicals in their midst, then we, and they, should sing Musharraf's praises for pitting himself squarely against the terrorists, rather than forming choruses that shriek about his perceived limitations.

Musharraf left no doubt about his commitment to victory in Pakistan's new war on extremism, reassuring his countrymen, "We will finish it off in every corner of the country." What greater victory could there be in a war against extremist terrorism than for a Muslim nation to clean its own house of terrorists? Let us not allow our national epidemic of impatience to cripple in Pakistan what may be the ultimate death knell for radical Islam: internal reform, by ideology if possible, but by the sword if necessary.

Technorati Tags:
Musharraf, Lee Hamilton, Colonel David Hunt, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, War on Terror, Moderate Muslims, Radical Islam

Ex-CIA Expert Wrong on Terror Motives

The former head of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer, has carved out a niche for himself as an author, television news terrorism expert, and designated bitter former intelligence officer turned U.S. government basher. As such he is the darling of liberal media outlets, and he is a frequent and welcomed guest. His writings and commentary are consistently filled with dire warnings to western governments that they do not understand the motives of Islamic terrorists and thus cannot win the War on Terror. Scheuer may have held prominent positions within the CIA, but that apparently did not insulate him from adopting a sympathetic view of what he believes are the motives behind Islamic terrorism.

Speaking in Sydney, Australia earlier this week, Scheuer blasted the U.S. and its allies for failure in the War on Terror, but I want readers to focus on a few key arguments Scheuer put forth to explain why he believes the West will lose the War on Terror. I will then counter Scheuer’s description of Islamic terror motives with the words of an actual radical Islamist who paints a very different portrait of Islamic motives. First, Scheuer’s “blame the West for terrorism” argument, excerpted from Australia’s The Age:

"We in the West are fighting an enemy we have woefully chosen to misunderstand and to whom we are losing hands down and on every front," he said.

Mr. Scheuer said there was no hope of bringing democracy to Iraq or Afghanistan without a much greater commitment to defeat insurgents.

He said the West's biggest mistake in the war on terror was to ignore the grievances of Islamic insurgents.

He said Western politicians, including Prime Minister John Howard, deceived the public by suggesting that terrorists were motivated only by hatred for freedoms enjoyed in the West.

Mr. Howard had "warbled" the "wildly inaccurate ditty" that the London bombers were motivated by a hatred of Western culture, Mr. Scheuer said.

He said Al-Qaeda was motivated by anger towards US foreign policy in the Middle East rather than by hatred for Western culture.

That included the US military presence in the region, its backing of tyrannical Arab regimes and "unqualified" support for Israel.

Scheuer accuses Western governments of misunderstanding the enemy, and based on my own experience I would agree that understanding of radical Islam is in short supply within our government agencies. The federal government is far too influenced by groups like CAIR and not influenced enough by those who actively track Islamist extremist activity, like Jihad Watch. However, Scheuer should engage in serious introspection to examine whether he likewise possesses only a shallow knowledge of terror motives. After a long career with the CIA studying and combating Islamic terrorism, it is remarkable that Scheuer ascribes political rather than religious or cultural motives to Islamic terrorists. Everything I have learned about Islamic terrorists leads me to a very different conclusion about their motives: radical Islamists seek nothing short of total global Islamic rule, with Sharia law as the established behavioral code for all mankind.

If that sounds like a radical conclusion, it is, but perhaps the words of former Islamic radical Hassan Butt published by the UK Daily Mail, will help readers distinguish the true terror motive from propaganda arguments incessantly regurgitated by Islamists and Western liberals alike that the West could somehow pacify these terrorists by changing our foreign policies:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

…And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.

For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."

…I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again.

…And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.

There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.

Scheuer and Western governments, liberal or conservative, need look no further than Butt’s phrase, “creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice,” to gain a realistic understanding of Islamic terrorists’ motives. There is nothing complicated contained in this radical theology. It is not based on our oil interests, or our “occupation” of Iraq, or our support of Israel’s “occupation” of Palestine. It is based on crystal clear distinctions between good (Islam) and evil (unbelievers) and the assurance that any action taken to hasten the dawning of a global Islamic state, no matter how violent, is justified and fulfills Islamic scriptural prophecy. We are merely the largest and most formidable obstacle to this quest for global Islamic domination.

Only when Western governments and media terror “experts” like Scheuer acknowledge the true motive of the enemy in the War on Terror will the formulation of effective strategies to win that war be possible. America and her allies united in WWII to prevent the establishment of a global totalitarian Nazi state. Preventing the establishment of a global Islamic state under Sharia law will require a similar and likely longer-term unity and commitment to victory.

If the divisions among us exposed by the Iraq War and the War on Terror are any indication, such unity of purpose between our two political parties may already be impossible. When presidential candidates from both parties echo Scheuer’s flawed argument that America causes terrorism through its foreign policies (Ron Paul-R and all Democratic candidates), or claim that the War on Terror is merely a Bush bumper sticker slogan (John Edwards), it is clear that ignorance of our enemy’s motives is endemic at the highest levels of Western government and media institutions.

Technorati Tags:
Michael Scheuer, CIA, Terrorism Expert, Hassan Butt, Radical Islam, Islamic State, War on Terror, Jihad, Foreign Policy

Bomb Doctors Sign of Radicalism's Reach

What would you think if, while conversing with an Iraqi Sunni sheikh at a meeting of sheikhs attempting to broker “peace” in Iraq, he began spewing a litany of anti-American rhetoric, warned you that militants would expand their operations to include direct attacks on Britain and America, and further warned you that “those who cure you will kill you?” Would that last phrase stand out in your mind? What would you conclude that the sheikh meant by his comment about “those who cure?”

You don’t have to be an intelligence specialist or counterterrorism expert to take the sheikh’s warning at face value and put two and two together, but apparently British Anglican cleric Canon Andrew White had difficulty seeing the proverbial forest for the trees. Instead of reporting the verbatim warning to the British Foreign Office in April, when the disturbing conversation occurred, White left out the statement “those who cure you will kill you,” and merely told authorities of the anti-American rhetoric at the meeting, warning in generic terms only that militants were going to target America and Britain directly.

White has received recognition from coalition forces in Iraq for his work among Iraqis and attempts to reconcile the various religious factions there. He was no stranger to radical ideology, having witnessed its brutality firsthand, and that is why it was stunning that he did not recognize the sheikh’s comments as a reference to doctors. White deserves standard kudos for reporting what little he did report to the British Foreign Office at the time, but unfortunately it took failed car bombings in London and Glasgow last week, and the subsequent arrests of 8 doctors, medical students, and laboratory technicians in Britain for it to dawn on White what the sheikh’s warning actually meant and to go public with his “discovery.” There is no question that had White shared the sheikh’s precise phrase with government authorities in April, British intelligence would have begun immediately to inquire with its informants about doctors or others in the medical profession and may very well have detected the London-Glasgow plot before its unsuccessfully execution last week.

The UK Telegraph reported today that the post-attack investigation has revealed that a group of 45 Muslim doctors may have participated in an extremist Internet chat room as long as three years ago in which they threatened to use car bombs to attack targets in the United States. One can only imagine how deeply British or American intelligence/counterterrorism agencies might have penetrated, or how closely they could have monitored such a group of doctors had they known of its existence as early as April of this year, when White first received an explicit warning about “those who cure.”

Yesterday I asked my wife, an astute thinker in her own right but who had not heard any coverage of White’s restored memory, to imagine what she would conclude if an anti-American Islamic sheikh told her “those who cure you will kill you.” She replied that not only would she immediately think of doctors, but that her concern would focus not on car bombs but rather on chemical/biological attacks that could be launched quietly through unsuspecting patients by doctors with access to biological and radiological materials. She was thinking of pandemics or radiation poisonings caused by doctors in whom Americans (or the British) would have placed their implicit trust for routine treatment, a much more frightening prospect than propane tank car bombs. Considering the large number of Muslim doctors in the United States, particularly in the Washington, DC area, it is possible that patients may reconsider their choice of doctor with the revelations of willing terrorists among the ranks of Muslim medical personnel in the west.

American and British Muslim physicians and medical staff may chafe at the suspicion and patient cancellations that are sure to come on the heels of current investigations into the London-Glasgow terror doctors. They may consider it unfair and unwarranted, but moderate Muslims, including respected physicians and other successful Muslim professionals, need to purge their own ranks of extremists like the eight medical personnel arrested since Friday’s initial botched bombing. Radio personality Fred Grandy posed a timely question to Muslims during the “Grandy and Andy Morning Show” today: “Where is the anti-Bin Laden? Where is the anti-al Zawahiri?” He explained that the world is mesmerized by each new videotaped statement by Bin Laden, but there is no corresponding moderate Muslim leader to issue rebuttals to Bin Laden or condemn his rhetoric and offer a better alternative for impressionable Muslims throughout the world.

The arrested doctors in Britain illustrate an important truth of radical Islam: it is not limited in social or educational status and has quiet support even among those who are supposedly dedicated to preserving life. It has followers in every profession, in every walk of life. When doctors, well-educated and engaged in a lucrative profession, are willing to throw away years of training and achievement by risking detonating themselves along with hundreds of innocent British or American citizens, radical Islam demonstrates the expanse of its reach and indoctrinating power. In its appeal to base human impulse, radicalism is more compelling than reason.

In an interesting concluding paragraph to its report of cleric White’s hindsight, CNN unintentionally published a compelling argument for America to remain engaged in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries until Islamic terrorists are dealt an ultimately fatal blow. Whether it meant to or not, CNN supported President Bush’s premise that “we are fighting the terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here.” From CNN’s report:

According to officials, there has been long-standing concern that Iraq is a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists who have been testing tactics of urban warfare, which can then be used in Western nations.

Terrorism analyst Marco Vicenzino, the director of the Global Strategy Project, says the world could be seeing a shift in jihadist tactics.

Confident after wounding the United States and its allies in Iraq, jihadists "are determined to take their combat experience directly to the superpower and its allies at home and around the world," Vicenzino said.

If the jihadists are “confident” after wounding the U.S. in Iraq, then it stands to reason that America’s response to a wounding should not be retreat, withdrawal, or “redeployment,” as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and other prominent Democrats have euphemistically recommended. Rather than allow an emboldened enemy to be confident, grow stronger, and launch widespread attacks, the enemy must be defeated and discouraged from ever attempting to “wound” America again. If they are determined, we must be doubly so. If they are confident of eventual victory, we must deny them of achieving it by dealing them defeat and crushing their capacity to strike us. If radical Islam is a disease slowly consuming the world even through the assistance of professional healers, and moderate Islam will not treat the disease devouring its ranks, who then holds the cure?

Technorati Tags:
Muslim Doctors, London Car Bombs, Radical Islam, Terrorism, Fred Grandy, Canon Andrew White, Iraq War, Muslim Medical Students, Moderate Muslims, Jihad

"Sanctuary" Nearly Fatal For Fort Dix

At first glance, the plot by six recently converted Islamic terrorists to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey with automatic weapons seemed like a ridiculous idea. Why attack a target that was defended by armed security and had, within the confines of the military base, tactical response teams that could respond with significant force and firepower to repel the attack? How did they decide to target Fort Dix?

Media coverage of the foiled plot has offered a mixture of praise for the FBI and condemnation of everyone from President Clinton (for intervening in the former Yugoslavia and sheltering uprooted ethnic Albanians in New Jersey) to President Bush (for encouraging terrorism by our presence in Iraq). However, three sources offered even-keeled and informative reporting and analysis.

The first was a good general account of the plot and the arrest operation in the Washington Post yesterday that detailed each participant as well as how an alert video store clerk tipped off the FBI in 2006 after the co conspirators requested that a VHS videotape be converted into DVD format. The file contained video of the group training at a firearms range while calling for Jihad and importuning the name of “Allah.” The article also provided links to the criminal complaint and affidavit filed by the U.S. Attorney’s office and the FBI. Those documents present a complete description of the defendants, their actions, and their intentions.

The second source was a blog I read regularly, In From the Cold, the author of which often has unique perspectives, particularly on issues involving the military or military intelligence. In a post Tuesday titled “Terror Plot Thwarted,” the author, Spook86, addressed the knee-jerk question many likely had when they first read that the terrorists intended to attack a “secure” military base. Spook86 described some of the inner workings of military bases like Fort Dix, and focused on the security weaknesses that are common to all such facilities. Food delivery drivers bringing eagerly anticipated meals are a welcome and mundane sight at military bases and federal buildings for that matter, and entering the base under the guise of pizza delivery was a well selected tactic. Taxis, shuttle buses, food delivery, all of these are so common that they are rarely screened properly, especially if the driver is recognized by security guards. If you thought a military base on American soil was too secure to be a viable target for terrorists, you will reconsider that position after reading In From the Cold’s analysis of the plot’s potential success.

The third source, and certainly the most disturbing, was yesterday's Fox News story that reported the immigration/citizenship status of the terrorists. According to Fox News interviews with a federal law enforcement source, three of the terrorists were living illegally in the United States. While it may not be unusual for known terrorists to enter the United States illegally, the immigration pattern of these previously unknown terrorists will sound familiar to those who are concerned about America's porous borders. Three of the terrorists, the Duka brothers, were apparently smuggled into the United States near Brownsville, Texas in 1984, when they were children between ages 1-6, along with other family members. The family settled in New Jersey, and, to fit the hotly debated stereotype of so many illegal immigrants, worked various blue collar jobs into adulthood. Of the six terrorists arrested for plotting to assault Fort Dix, one was a cab driver, three were roofers, one worked as a 7-11 clerk, and one worked at his father's pizza restaurant. It was as a delivery driver that one of the terrorists obtained extensive knowledge of base operations. These blue collar hard working illegal aliens were seemingly assimilating into American society, just trying to find a better life than the one they left behind in their home country. Stop me if this story sounds familiar.

These young, hard working blue collar illegal immigrants, however, became enamored with the ideology and "heroism" of al Qaeda and were inspired by the recorded last "wills" of the 9/11 hijackers and according to the Fox report, the group watched video footage containing terrorist training instructions, including simulated and actual attacks on U.S. military personnel. In time, the group progressed from embracing ideology to actively plotting attacks on a variety of nearby targets, eventually escalating to the point where they attempted to purchase automatic weapons from an FBI informant who had infiltrated this illegal immigrant terrorist cell. That is when the FBI made its move. The outrageous aspect of this story is that these terrorists were known to local law enforcement (not as terrorists of course) long before they mutated into al-Qaeda wannabes, but because of city ordinances prohibiting police officers from questioning an individual's immigration or citizenship status, they continued living, working, and plotting in their neighborhood rather than being arrested, included in illegal immigrant databases, or deported. Fox News reported:

FOX News has also learned that there were 19 traffic citations against the Duka brothers, but according to a federal law enforcement source, because they operated in so-called "sanctuary cites," where law enforcement does not routinely tell the Homeland Security Department about illegal immigrants in their towns, none of the tickets raised red flags.

The terrorists in this case scouted multiple targets before choosing Fort Dix because of their familiarity with and proximity to it. If you live near a military base or government installation, be extra vigilant and report any suspicious activity immediately, because if you live in a "sanctuary" city, your city government has tied the hands of law enforcement and placed you in danger. It is no exaggeration when the President states that we must be right 100% of the time to prevent an attack, while the terrorists only have to get it right once. This group might have gotten it right had it not been for the DVD request and an alert store clerk’s willingness to take action. In this case, a Circuit City store clerk did more to protect homeland security than the local government. Rather than protect its citizens, local governments instead offered "sanctuary" to America-hating illegal immigrants who came alarmingly close to slaughtering many of America's finest at Fort Dix.

Are Iraqis Worth It? Hanson Nails Issue

We daily scour the blogosphere and news columns for stories or opinions that strike a chord within us, that indicate the author is a kindred spirit, that demonstrate that someone else out there “gets it” when it comes to the important issues of our time. Today while reading National Review Online I read an article by an author I read with regularity and had such an experience. Even before this week, with the passage in the House and Senate of the Iraq White Flag Surrender Turn Tail and Flee Beginning October 1st Bill dominating the headlines, I wrote about the real reason why some Americans are not willing to sacrifice long and hard for the fledgling democracy in Iraq, and today prominent author and NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson took up this issue in a brilliantly written and bluntly articulated article titled, “Iraq, and the Truth We Dare Not Speak.”

Hanson shared my view that much of the war weariness among Americans is due to a feeling of superiority, that somehow democracy and freedom are exclusive American virtues and rights, and at the least sign of difficulty, we assume other peoples are not prepared of capable of governing themselves as we do. Hanson wrote:

But, again, most Americans now don’t think it is worth it — and not just because of the cost we pay, but because of what we get in return. Turn on the television and the reporting is all hate: a Middle Eastern Muslim is blowing up someone in Israel, shooting a rocket from Gaza, chanting death to America in Beirut, stoning an adulterer in Tehran, losing a hand for thievery in Saudi Arabia, threatening to take back Spain, gassing someone in Iraq, or promising to wipe out Israel. An unhinged, secular Khadafi rants; a decrepit Saudi royal lectures; a wild-eyed Lebanese cleric threatens — whatever the country, whatever the political ideology, the American television viewer draws the same conclusion: we are always blamed for their own self-inflicted misery….

But the real catalysts are the endemic violence and hypocrisy that appear nightly on millions of television screens. When the liberal Left says of the war, “It isn’t worth it,” that message resonates, as the American public rightly suspects that it really means “They aren’t worth it.” Voters may not like particularly a Harry Reid, but in frustration at the violence, they sense now that, just like them, he also doesn’t like a vague somebody over there.So here we are in our eleventh hour. A controversial and costly war continues, in part so as to give Arab Muslims the sort of freedom the West takes for granted; but at precisely the time that the public increasingly is tired of Middle Eastern madness. In short, America believes that the entire region is not worth the bones of a single Marine.

In my previous posts about Indonesia’s successes as a Muslim democracy and the Democrats unwillingness to be patient with Iraq’s governmental development, I, like Hanson, questioned why so many Americans, the Democratic left in particular, were so eager for a rush to withdraw without victory in Iraq. Their behavior demonstrated what I described previously as a “carrot and stick” approach, with Pelosi and Reid holding the stick of abandonment over free Iraqis who are working and dying to cement democracy for future generations of Iraqis and other aspiring but oppressed populations in the Middle East. I concluded:

There are only two possible explanations for the behavior of Speaker Pelosi and the anti-war Democrats: first, they despise President Bush so much that they cannot afford to allow the Iraq War to be won, as a victory there would cement President Bush’s legacy as the man who brought democracy to the Middle East and ensure a Republican sweep in the 2008 elections; or second, Democrats are prejudiced in their belief that democracy should not be shared or supported in Muslim nations because Muslims are too backward in their thinking to truly want democracy.

In World War II, Americans had little trouble relating with and having empathy for the European populations our soldiers died to free from the Nazis. However, fighting to preserve democracy or at least halt the spread of Communism in Korea and Vietnam, Americans demonstrated far less cultural understanding or will to share the blessings of freedom with Asian peoples. Is this same phenomenon occurring now in Iraq? Is our minimal knowledge of Middle Eastern cultures, languages, and religious groups causing us to consider those peoples less worthy of our money, time, and blood than Europeans were in two world wars? Perhaps the most salient question is, if we give Iraqis a taste of freedom and democracy and abandon them before they can sustain their freedom, will any other peoples rise up to overthrow tyranny knowing that the bastion of freedom, the United States, cannot be trusted to defend democracy?

Victor Davis Hanson’s article was a gem that Capital Cloak heartily recommends to all readers.

6 Arab Nations Surveyed: "Moderate" Islamic Scholar Praises Suicide Bombers, Blames America for Terrorism

According to a Zogby International survey conducted in 6 Middle Eastern nations for the Brookings Institution, the consensus among Arabs is a yawner: America is to blame for terrorist attacks and the increase of Islamic extremism. Cybercast News Service further reported that according to the survey anti-American sentiment is on the rise in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates, the six nations surveyed. While the increase in anti-Americanism comes as no surprise, some of the other survey results deserve consideration.

To set the context, the survey results were presented at the U.S.-Islamic Forum held in Doha, Qatar. Ostensibly it was intended to be a conference to discuss relations between the U.S. and Islam, but due to the attendance of and remarks delivered by several highly influential Islamic figures, it regressed into a "blame America" session in which responsibility for terrorist murders was heaped upon Israel, the U.S. and England, in that order, with none ascribed to the terrorists themselves.

One of the prinicple speakers, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni scholar considered as the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and a resident of Qatar, made a remarkable assertion, one that echoes the talking points of the anti-war movement within the U.S. According to al-Qaradawi, the U.S. had gone searching for "an alternative enemy" after the Soviet Union crumbled. According to Al-Qaradawi, "The U.S. has initiated the animosity when the neoconservatives chose Islam as an alternative enemy." Let's examine that statement. What is the Arabic term for "neoconservative"? Is it any wonder that conservatives accuse liberals of siding with our enemies when those enemies use the same phrases and descriptive names (like Neocon) in their rants against America? Did America go looking for war after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? After the Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya? After the bombing of the USS Cole? Based on historical fact, it would seem radical Islam came looking for war, not America. Even a hyper tolerant, suicidally permissive society must at some point strike back, and 9/11 demanded a response that should have been made nearly a decade earlier.

According to al-Qaradawi's website, he is a voice of moderation, this despite his consistent defense of suicide bombings as an acceptable and encouraged practice among "oppressed" Muslims. These are the words of a "moderate" Islamic scholar who is featured frequently on Al-Jazeera network:

Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do," Qaradawi told BBC television in 2004, adding during a press conference around the same time that suicide bombings are "weapons to which the weak resort in order to upset the balance because the powerful have all the weapons that the weak are denied.

Of great interest were the survey results that identified the nations and leaders most despised (feared as a threat) and most admired by the 6 Arab nations surveyed.

In summary, the most despised leaders were:
1. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (in a coma since 2006)
2. President Bush
3. British Prime Minister Tony Blair

The most despised nations (actually phrased as biggest threat to Arabs) were:
1. Israel
2. The U.S.
3. Great Britain

Most admired world figures:
1. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah (leader of the terrorist group Hizballah)
2. French President Jacque Chirac
3. Iranian President Ahmadinejad
4. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

It is fascinating that Jacque Chirac was more admired than Ahmadinejad and Chavez, given that one is thumbing his nose at the West and developing nuclear weapons, and the other publicly stated in the U.N. General Assembly that he could still smell the stench of President Bush's evil in the room after the President had spoken and departed. Apparently France's refusal to join the coalition assembled for the Iraq War is a cherished memory in the Arab world.

There was some good news from the conference, however. Sheikh al-Qaradawi provided the long-elusive solution to the War on Terror: "If America changed its policy [conquering the world by force], we would change our attitudes." Amazing how similar are the talking points and conclusions of terror supporters and our own liberal left. "If we would just withdraw from Iraq, they would stop hating us." "If we would stop supporting Israel, they would stop hating us." "If we weren't so brazenly immoral they would not want to kill us." All of these have been put forth as solutions for the spread of Islamic terrorism by the American liberal left and even by some well-meaning but ultimately misguided souls on the right (D'Souza comes to mind).

Terrorism cannot be stopped by appeasing it, counseling with it, or seeking to understand its root causes, since according to radical Islam the justification is in the Quran regardless of the socio-political climate. It can only be stopped by destroying those who practice it, harbor it, and fund it. That is why Chirac is so popular, as he has attempted none of these. The Arab world clearly wants more leaders like him in power in the West, and influenced Spain's elections accordingly with pre-election bombings. Will they need to resort to that here? If voting trends continue, they will get their wish without further attacks on American soil.

DNC Led in Prayer for Global Conversion to Islam: Ignorance of Islamic Terminology Rampant in Washington

On Saturday, World Net Daily reported that at Friday’s Democratic National Committee (DNC) winter meeting, attendees bowed their heads and were led in prayer by a popular Michigan religious leader. The party usually associated with ACLU positions on prayer religion’s role in public life, appeared in its winter meeting to be eager to show its reverence for religious practice. On the surface this would appear to be a welcome change for the DNC, but when it comes to the DNC and its quest to cast itself as mainstream America, nothing is as it seems. As the DNC bowed and listened to a prayer seemingly for peace, brotherhood, and an end to global strife, what was actually prayed for by the religious leader went completely unrecognized and unchallenged by DNC members.

In a remarkable, but sadly not uncommon (Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Chairman House Intelligence Committee unaware of whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite), display of Washington’s chronic cultural ignorance of Islamic culture and symbolism, DNC members prayed for their own conversion to Islam, liberation of the world from religions other than Islam, the end of American and Israeli “occupations” in the Middle East, and the destruction of Israel. More troubling is that none of them appear to have realized they had done so.

The meaning of the prayer, spoken in English by Husham Al-Husainy, Shiite imam of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center, a mosque in Dearborn, Michigan, was clearly understood by those with knowledge of Islamic symbolism, but not by any DNC members, many of whom already hold or aspire to occupy the most sensitive policy making positions within the US Government. Senators, Congressman, presidential aspirants, and key staffers, the power-wielders in the party now controlling Congress suffer from a deplorable ignorance of traditional, let alone radical Islam. Lest Republicans gloat about their rival colleagues’ shortcomings, a similar ignorance of Islam exists in that party as well, though displayed less transparently than Rep. Reyes and the DNC have illustrated.

Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch, reviewed a transcript of the prayer and provided a concise explanation of terms as they relate to Islamic culture, history, and teachings from the Quran. The prayer was delivered as follows:

“In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammad. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen.”

Spencer pointed out that in Islam, the term “straight path” refers to Islamic Sharia, the body of Islamic law that governs politics, economics, behaviors and all other aspects of life under Islamic rule. All other paths, or governmental forms, are errant and must be corrected. Likewise, the phrase “the path of the people you bless” refers to peoples living under Sharia law. All other religions or nations not under Sharia rule are doomed.

It is significant that the next sentence importunes God to “liberate and fill the earth with justice”. Liberate whom, and what form would justice take? “Liberation” in Islamic terminology denotes conversion of all nations to Islam, or liberation from errant religions, and “justice” equates to Sharia, the Islamic code of laws Muslims would implement after “liberating” nations oppressed by other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity.

Imam Al-Husainy concluded with the obligatory reference to Israel, calling for an end to the Israeli state and its presence on (occupation of) disputed Arab land, as well as and end to the US “occupation” of Iraq. To embrace a prayer with such references and wishes is ironically stunning for the DNC, which is supported with fierce (though clearly misguided) loyalty by American Jews. Donating to campaigns of candidates from a party that invites clerics to pray for global conversion to Islam is, one would reasonably conclude, not in the interest of members of any other religion or no religion at all. Under Sharia there is no special consideration or immunity granted to atheists, agnostics, or naturalists. ACLU secular crusaders would face beheading for attempting to separate Church and State under Sharia law.

That the DNC sought to demonstrate its conveniently new effort to appear religious by inviting an imam to pray is not objectionable. That the DNC did not recognize or have courage to criticize the content of the prayer should stir outrage among all Americans of either party and of all religions. Our elected officials and the parties funding them either lack basic knowledge of Islamic culture and the teachings of the Quran, or if they have such awareness lack the fortitude to point out and condemn thinly veiled calls for the overthrow of America and Israel, especially when those calls come from a popular imam.

Secretary of State Rice recently bowed to “political correctness”, referring to HAMAS as a “resistance movement” rather than a terrorist group (despite the State Department’s official designation of HAMAS as a terrorist organization). Even those tasked with recruiting allies in the War on Terror are afraid of offending terrorists by calling them terrorists. It should come as no surprise that the DNC imam had the audacity to pray for such things by invitation in front of a prominent political organization. That he did so and no one in Washington noticed or cared should be a clear warning sign to all who are not on the “straight path” that radical Islam is winning the political, media, and culture war here while our soldiers are fighting the physical war in the Middle East.


Technorati Search Tags: DNC Husham Al-Husainy World Net Daily Robert Spencer Jihad Watch Islamic Conversion HAMAS Dearborn US Department of State Condoleeza Rice Global War On Terror Silvestre Reyes Israeli Occupation