Tag Archives: terrorism

The Banners of Jihad

Posted on by
19

Jihad is a war that Muslims fight against non-Muslims. It is considered a holy crusade that each Muslim must take according to the Quran.

There are different ways that jihad can be waged. According to the Quran and Hadith, it can be fought with the heart, the tongue, the hand, or the sword.

The nature of the battle changes according to place and enemy. A non-believer who lives as a dhimmi – a second-class citizen in an Islamic country – is fought with the heart, not violence. Countries or people that do no accept dhimmi status, that live in or influence lands that are considered to be “Muslim lands” are combated with force.

In modern times, the banners of jihad first appeared on the battlefields.  It spread to Muslim countries and then to the center of western cities.  It can now be found on college campuses. There are already news reports that it is arriving in smaller communities – perhaps like your neighborhood.

The banners will be different, depending on the makeup of your town and country. But make no mistake, the jihad is the same.

jihad burndenmark2 burnaustralia burnswitz burnfrance burnuk burnsweden burnus norway a4bia massacre parisstreets shariafrance shariauk enddemocracy netherlands holocaust jihad uk UK israel nazi stop israel streets protest cairo behead syria-nusra-retaliation-us-strikes.si gaza antiUS bokoharam hamas al shabaab isis bds

Sources:

Jihad definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad

FirstOneThrough on the global/local nature of Jihad: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/pick-your-jihad-pick-your-infidel/

Pick Your Jihad; Choose Your Infidel

Posted on by
49

The rise of Islamic extremism is not new. It is not a surprise. The mission of jihadists has been clearly broadcast for years – the destruction and annihilation of non-Muslim people and non-Islamic countries by Muslims and replacing them with Islamic states:

 HAMAS

The Hamas Charter was drafted in 1988. It mentions the word “jihad” 11 times in the charter. Its enemy is spelled out clearly: Jews.

“In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews,
we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad.”

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it”

Jew/s/ish is mentioned 12 times in its charter. “Zion/ism/ist” is mentioned 20 times.

Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinian people in 2006 to carry out a war against the Jews and to destroy Israel. The attacks against Israel in the summer of 2014 that continue to this day are a consistent part of its mission.

 jihadist

Hamas jihadist

AL QAEDA

Al Qaeda did not suddenly appear on 9/11/2001. In 1998, it stated its goal of killing all Americans:

“we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military —
is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it
in any country in which it is possible to do it”

Al Qaeda has not backed down on its pledge while the US has enlisted the world support to defeat the group.

BOKO HARAM

The kidnapping of over 200 Christian girls in Nigeria in April 2014 shocked the world. Boko Haram made no secret of its targeted enemy a few years earlier: Christians.

 “The Nigerian state and Christians are our enemies
and we will be launching attacks on the Nigerian state
and its security apparatus as well as churches
until we achieve our goal of
establishing an Islamic state in place of the secular state.”

The world tweeted its support to bring back the girls and has provided support to find the attackers.

Many extremist groups continue to operate around the MENA region: Al-Shabaab, ISIS and Khorasan are only a few. Their aims are clear. Their path is jihad. Only the name of the infidel changes based on where the jihadists operate.

What is the world reaction to each of these extremist groups? Is the global community clear in its response?

A few years ago, the United Nations established an anti-terrorism unit. Its directive has noble goals for combating terrorism such as stopping the flow of funds and people to these groups.  However, the committee has not been clear about who the terrorists are, as it only mentions Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as terrorist groups. These other jihadists could thereby escape sanctions.

Jihad is Jihad.  Terrorism is Terrorism.  The world must unite to stop it.  The goal must be clear and unequivocal.

The Jihadists are.

Sources:

Hamas Charter 1988: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397

Al Qaeda 1998 fatwa: http://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Boko Haram 2012: http://www.osundefender.org/?p=32210

Boko Haram kidnapping girls: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/09/26/first_kidnapped_chibok_girl_released_by_boko_haram_still_traumatized.html

Al Shabaab: http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/al_shabaab.html

ISIS February 2014: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26366197

Khorasan: http://www.stripes.com/news/khorasan-a-little-known-extremist-group-targeted-in-us-strikes-in-syria-1.304523

UN terrorism agency: http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/docs/presskit/2013_PressKit_EN_v3.pdf

FirstOneThrough on NY Times preference for Hamas: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/the-new-york-times-wants-the-military-to-defeat-terrorists-but-not-hamas/

Palestinian antiemetism, Holocaust denial and call for jihad: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/what-do-you-recognize-in-the-palestinians/

Blessing Islamophobia

Posted on by
7

The New York Times gave a warm and strong endorsement for Islamophobia this weekend. It’s opinion pages wrote strongly about the importance of free speech and the logic of exploring the hatred that many people feel towards all Muslims around the world, whether due to the 9/11 terror attacks or the beheadings of innocents today.

The New York Times editorial said it was “entirely correct” for people to express why they want to kill Muslims. It added that people “should not yield to critics” who want to use political correctness to suppress their anger.

The Times is on record – again – defending those who want to broadcast their rationale for killing any follower of Islam. Free speech “gives voice to all sides” including racists.

The paper remains standing “properly firm in defending… the principle of artistic freedom in a world rife with political pressures.” A surprising wake-up from a paper that people often view as erring more towards political correctness than towards the right of free speech.

In case you don’t believe the quotes and sentiments of the current NY Times editorial board, the links to the two editorials are below. The one (small) item worth noting, is that the paper actually wrote about killing Jews, not Muslims. But in balancing free speech and political correctness, I have made an assumption that the Times isn’t going to limit free speech just to anti-Semites. Was that a bad assumption?

20140921_120931

Sources:

NY Times editorial September 20 “The Met Opera Stands Firm”: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/the-death-of-klinghoffer-must-go-on.html

NY Times editorial June 19: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/opinion/the-metropolitan-operas-backward-move.html

FirstOneThrough on Klinghoffer Opera: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/eyal-gilad-naftali-klinghoffer-the-new-blood-libel/

Saudi Arabia, “Ally” of the United States

Posted on by
3

The USA has many allies in the world. Many are natural due to common language or culture between the countries (such as United Kingdom and Canada). These allies have deep relationships that extend beyond military ties between the governments. The connections extend to the populations where there are natural flows of business and tourism. The relationships extend to the founding of the countries.

Other American allies developed over time for a number of reasons. A country may have discovered valuable natural resources (such as oil) or the geographical location of the country may have grown in significance because of evolving military dynamics. Other than such practical (sometimes temporary) reasons, the countries may share little in common. Saudi Arabia is such an example.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has one of the most repressive governments in the world. Minorities have virtually no rights and women have few freedoms. Still, the US government chooses to ignore Saudi policies and distrust between the populations, and focuses narrowly on Saudi oil and military cooperation between the countries.  US President Obama underscored the point again on September 10, 2014, with an announcement of strategic military cooperation.

On the 13th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/01, it is worth remembering that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Countries with few common values will always remain tenuous friends.

A political music video (music by The Cars):

Sources:

http://nypost.com/2014/09/10/obama-moves-to-aide-syrian-rebels-in-fight-against-isis/

lashes

US Hypocrisy – “Reasonableness and Restraint”

Posted on by
12

Thirteen years ago, on 9/11/01, 2,977 innocent civilians were murdered in the United States by terrorists armed with nothing more than pilot licenses. Since that time, the US has deployed over 1 million troops and waged two wars in countries thousands of miles from its shores. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians were estimated to have been killed in the US-led war in Iraq, over 30 times the number of civilians killed on 9/11.

President Obama was critical of that war and pulled the US out of Iraq as he thought the US went to war with the wrong enemy. But when it came to Afghanistan, he engaged fully.

By the time Obama became president in 2009, an estimated 8,500 civilians had been killed in Afghanistan. Under his watch, from January 2009 until June 30, 2014, an additional 15,487 civilians were murdered, including 1,995 children. These totals were a fraction of the number of militants killed over those years.

Why has the Obama administration waged a war for so long? Why has it continued to fight – even though it knows of the terrible collateral damage – years after Osama bin Laden was killed?

The US continues to fight because the enemy still exists and intends to do harm.

President Obama was clear that the destruction of the terrorist infrastructure was one of the goals of his war. In November 2012 he said: “Thanks to sacrifice and service of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.”

Obama clearly articulated his war goals: to get the US out of a war which did not have an enemy threat; destroy the enemy (al Qaeda); and take revenge on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

However, Obama seemingly does not feel that such priorities relate to Israel. For him, the goal in the region is limited to one thing – stability (which is laughable considering the total instability of Syria, Iraq, Egypt…). Israel, in his mind, is strong enough to take a few murdered teenagers and qassam rockets. Israel’s stability is secondary to that of the region generally.

Witness Secretary of State John Kerry’s prepared remarks towards Israel after the murder of three Israeli teenagers coming home from school: “the perpetrators must be brought to justice. This is a time for all to work towards that goal without destabilizing the situation.”

Obama himself added: “At this dangerous moment, all parties must protect the innocent and act with reasonableness and restraint, not vengeance and retribution,”

America has been fighting with “vengeance and retribution” for 13 years (and counting), even when the collateral damage meant thousands of civilians murdered. Obama is actively seeking to defeat an enemy, even one thousands of miles away, that poses no existential threat to the USA.

So, how can Obama chide Israel, which has an enemy on its borders that is sworn to the country’s destruction, which fires missiles that can attack 80% of the population? How can he not understand Israel’s need to “decimate” its enemy?

The appropriate “reasonableness and restraint” may be limited to a polite response from the civilized world to Obama’s comment, while Israel actively engages Hamas and protects its citizens.

Sources:

http://www.unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/PoC-Civilian-Casualties-report-2007.pdf

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/Protection%20of%20Civilian%202009%20report%20English.pdf

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Documents/UNAMA%20POC%202011%20Report_Final_Feb%202012.pdf

http://unama.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=K0B5RL2XYcU%3D

http://www.unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=12254&ctl=Details&mid=15756&ItemID=37692&language=en-US

http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=12254&ctl=Details&mid=15756&ItemID=38134&language=en-US

The New York Times wants the military to defeat terrorists (but not Hamas)

Posted on by
17

NYT 6/9/14: “Pakistan’s Latest Crisis” was a call to action for the military to defeat terrorists. What about Israel defeating Hamas? Not so much.

The Pakistan editorial led with a strong statement about the Taliban: “In its increasingly violent effort to destroy the Pakistani state”, the NYT made the Taliban’s ultimate goal clear. It continued with a call for the Pakistani government to wake up: “Will this be the crisis that finally persuades Pakistan’s government and its powerful military to acknowledge the Taliban’s pernicious threat and confront it in a comprehensive way? It should be.” The NYT editorial board clearly spelled out its desire for a military strike to defeat the terrorist entity that attacked civilians in Pakistan.

It is distressing to compare these statements with the 11/20/12 editorial about Gaza firing nearly 1000 rockets into Israel. The NYT did not describe Hamas as a terrorist entity (labeled so by the US, Canada, EU, Japan, Jordan, Egypt and Israel). It did not state that Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel – which it has made clear throughout its charter, and the statements and actions of its leadership for many years. Rather, the NYT stated that Hamas “resorted to violence” in a statement that is either evil or laughable in its ignoring the calls for death and destruction of Jews and the Jewish State.

The Times then went on to blame Israel: “Israel also has a responsibility for the current crisis,” Is the Times suggesting that if all the Jews would just leave the Middle East and dissolve Israel the way Hamas desires, they wouldn’t have to “resort to violence”?

The NYT was loath to suggest that Israel stamp out the terrorist entity bent on its destruction stating: “But military action is no long-term answer.”

The difference between the Taliban and Hamas is that Hamas is an elected government, having won 58% of the Palestinian vote in 2006. It governs a territory, Gaza, since 2007. But its desire to destroy all of Israel and kill civilians is not an iota less than the Taliban’s goals in Pakistan and the response from the government and military should similarly be supported. The links to the two editorials are below:

 

Pakistan-Taliban editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/opinion/pakistans-latest-crisis.html

“given recent events, one has to assume the militants will stop at nothing until the state is utterly destabilized and they have taken control. Pakistani political and military leaders need to be honest about the militant threat that they and their people are facing”

 

Israel-Hamas editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/opinion/hamass-illegitimacy.html?_r=0

“If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel had pursued serious negotiations on a two-state solution with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinians could have hope in a different future”

Israel provokes the Palestinians (The Clash)

Video

Reply

The Palestinians accuse Israel of provoking their ire and attacks for such activities as rebuilding a destroyed synagogue and archeological digs.