Showing posts with label radical Islamists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radical Islamists. Show all posts

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Excellent: Egyptian Muslims move to show solidarity with Coptic Christians

More of this, please:
“Although 2011 started tragically, I feel it will be a year of eagerly anticipated change, where Egyptians will stand against sectarianism and unite as one,” Father Rafaeil Sarwat of the Mar-Mina church told Ahram Online. The Coptic priest was commenting on the now widespread call by Muslim intellectuals and activists upon Egyptian Muslims at large to flock to Coptic churches across the country to attend Coptic Christmas Eve mass, to show solidarity with the nation's Coptic minority, but also to serve as "human shields" against possible attacks by Islamist militants.
I do see one problem, unfortunately.  Radical Muslims don't see to show much reluctance when it comes to blowing their Muslim brethren to bits.  Consorting with the enemy seems to be one of the standard justifications.

Still, massive props to these Egyptian Muslims for setting a fine example for a truly peaceful version of Islam.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Video clip: David Horowitz at UC San Diego

This is amazing video (Hat tip to The Blog via Power Line).

David Horowitz addresses the question of an Islamic student and MSA member with a question of his own.  The results are jaw-dropping:




Here's hoping the Obama administration gets its act together on foreign policy.  Not to mention homeland security.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Russia hit by Islamic suicide bombers?

I'd have used the headline "Russia hit by radical Islamic suicide bombers?" except it seemed redundant.
No group immediately took responsibility for the blasts but suspicion is likely to fall on groups from Russia's North Caucasus, where the Kremlin is fighting a growing Islamist insurgency.
(Reuters)
If I remember my American progressive talking points correctly, the Russians should cut the Caucasus loose and forget about it.  You can't fight an insurgency.

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Note to those grown faint on the war on terror

Regarding the latest video from al Qaeda:
In a message to the Americans and their "Crusader allies," Gadahn said: "The amount of respect we have for your international law is even less than the respect you hold for defined sharia (Islamic law), and our observance of it is comparable to your observance of sharia."

"How can we comply with a law which contradicts divine law in whole and in part?" Gadahn asked.

"How can we recognise a law which states that the embassy or consulate is for all intents and purposes an inviolable fortress which the host country has no right to enter or monitor and when our sharia commands us to liberate every handspan of Islamic land occupied by the unbelievers?"
(The News)
Was the video actually produced by Bushco in order to help prolong the war so that new terrorists will rise us and further escalate the war on terror (to the eventual destruction of the United States)?

No doubt.

But for those who doubt, there's going to be a violent conflict with radical Islam until all Islamic land is under sharia--not your so-called "international"--law. Your embassies are legitimate targets, say the radicals. That goes for the embassy of any nation that doesn't recognize sharia law. Switzerland. Brazil. Tanzania. And not just nations that have a "z" in their name.

Time to wake up before it's too late.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

US, Pakistan struggle to reach accord regarding N. Waziristan military action

ISLAMABAD: With little or no ground intelligence and complete lack of state-of-the-art surveillance devices, Pakistan finds itself in a difficult situation and is left with no choice but to rely on intelligence provided to it by the United States in North Waziristan and other sensitive areas within its borders.

Also, there is a growing pressure from Washington on Pakistan that it has to contain ‘emboldened Islamic extremists’, which in the worst-case scenario would lead to another attack on the US homeland.
(The News, Mariana Baabar)
Baabar (not Babar) provides an interesting take, and sticks with a writing approach that doesn't wander too far from the U.S. style of "objective" journalism.

The situation does seem best explained by conventional wisdom. Musharraf's government arose as a military dictatorship, and the president has moved toward significant democratic reforms--but the population of Pakistan contains quite a bit of sympathy for Islamic extremism. Indeed, Musharraf's government was about as tight with the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan as anybody.

In short, the grip of the sane on power in Pakistan isn't as firm as could be hoped.

Given the vulnerability of the government, Musharraf is caught between a rock and a hard place. He knows that he's at risk of being ousted by factions within his own country, and he fears that cooperating too deeply with the United States will ramp up the efforts to push him out of power. But I don't think his only concern is being pushed out of power.

I do think that Musharraf has the good of Pakistan in view. He knows that if radical factions gain control of the country it will fall into alignment against the West, and increase the chances that Pakistan will be pulled into a devastating war, or at least into an unpleasant imposition of economic sanctions.

With the long-term conflict with India still simmering, Pakistan call ill afford to cast aside potential friends.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

The tea leaves of scholarship

I wonder about the experts, sometimes.

I just stumbled across a Guardian column by Karen Armstrong, titled "An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts Western values."

Armstrong, according to Wikipedia, is a former nun and is now considered a religious scholar, anointed enough to participate in the Jesus Seminar experiment in truth by voting.

It's normal for editors to add the title to a column; after getting halfway through I suspected that maybe the editor had missed the point. Turns out, as revealed by the ninth paragraph, that Armstrong was referring to the objection Brits raised to the construction of a mosque in east London. To Armstrong, that constituted a repudiation of traditional Western values. The objections to the mosque, wrote Armstrong, sent a "grim message" to Muslims. Apparently the type of "grim message" that will exacerbate terrorism.
Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.
(the Guardian)
I'd like to respectfully disagree with Armstrong's analysis, except that the craziness of it bids me to offer it scant respect.

First, 8% of respondents condoning the 9/11 attacks is not "no blind hatred of the West." It's almost one out of 10 with some indication of blind hatred for the West. If one in ten Worshipers of the Almighty Pop-Up Toaster support barbaric acts of terrorism, you're right to be concerned if they want to put a Toasty Tabernacle in your neighborhood--with one caveat. If the WAPUTs in your town repudiate acts of terrorism and actively work to mend the damage that the extremists are wreaking on their reputation, then you'd be intolerant not to welcome them in your neighborhood.

Armstrong appears to buy into the notion that the poll result accurately reflects one of the principal root causes of terrorism--lack of respect for Islam. But the events of the past two weeks appear to undermine that thesis.

In Pakistan, as I've been noting in a series of posts, extremist Muslims were using a major mosque as a base of operations. When the nominally secular government (listed as a federal republic in the CIA World Fact Book) quashed the movement in the Red Mosque, extremist Muslim populations in the north of Pakistan began mounting suicide bombing attacks against their fellow Muslims. And that, unfortunately, is just the corner of the hole in Armstrong's thesis. Conflict between differing Islamic sects has been a dominant aspect of Islamic culture since the Sunni-Shia divide. And in Pakistan it's largely Sunni versus Sunni, though the radicals will abduct and kill Christians readily enough, as has apparently been the case with about 20 South Koreans in Pakistan this past week.

Would Armstrong have us believe that Muslims do not respect Islam?

As if Islam's own history of violence involving Muslim against Muslim weren't enough, there's another expansive genie that isn't going to get stuffed back into the bottle very easily: Cultural imperialism.

The West exports its culture. And we do a very good job of it. As it happens, the culture that we export is largely appalling to the Islamic mind. Let's face it: in a culture where women are expected to cover their bodies in an all-encompassing burka, even the 1970s version of "Charlie's Angels" is pretty shocking. Radical Islamists realize that open trade results in a type of war on their way of life. It is for that reason that Islamic leaders wish to restrict cultural interaction with the West, and part of the reason why radical Islamists want to bring the West down in smoking ruin.

The former we can work with, and most of us can respect it. The latter is a big problem.

Muslims who want respect for their religion will see the problem in their midst and do something about it. Those who tacitly approve do much to justify anti-Islamic skepticism.
***

About the Gallup poll cited by Armstrong

It's usually smart to put polls in their context. It helps in figuring out what the numbers mean (and what they don't).

The National Council on Public Polls listed four caveats with the Gallup poll (and the media coverage given the poll).
News stories based on the Gallup poll reported results in the aggregate without regard to the population of the countries they represent. Kuwait, with less than 2 million Muslims, was treated the same as Indonesia, which has over 200 million Muslims. The "aggregate" quoted in the media was actually the average for the countries surveyed regardless of the size of their populations.
(read the other three)
In other words, the results were not weighted in order to give a more accurate picture.
The NCPP also noted that Gallup did not randomize its poll in terms of choosing the countries in which the poll was conducted, and the survey did not exclude Muslims from answering the questions. Beyond that, the organization warned about additional problems stemming from the manner in which the media may have handled the data when presenting it to the general public.

In short, that 8 percent figure doesn't mean much. It could be much higher (or lower, FTM) worldwide.
The problem would be particularly worrisome if there were big differences in the results across the nine countries. And there were, at least on some key questions. For example, 36 percent of those interviewed in Kuwait said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were morally justifiable, compared to only 4 percent in Indonesia.
(the Washington Post)

Note: Armstrong may have referred to more than one Gallup poll in her column, but the recent poll was particular to U.K. Muslims, while any information extrapolated to apply to Islam generally was much more likely to have come from a 2002 Gallup poll. In the latter, there was a question regarding the justification of the 9/11 attacks. It isn't clear that any similar question occurred in the U.K. poll.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Extremists staying after Musharraf

Apparently yet another attempt has been made on the life of President Musharraf (military dictator of Pakistan, that is).
RAWALPINDI: The special police team arrested five persons involved in attack on President Musharraf�s plane from Asghar Mall area.

According to sources, the members belonging to an outlawed organization are also included among these people.
(The News)

The United States is supporting a dictator.

Thank your lucky stars, unless you're a radical Islamist cooking up jihad in Northern Pakistan or Eastern Afghanistan.

It sometimes seems to me that the same people who want us to make friendly peace deals with nations like Iran and North Korea are the same ones who excoriate the United States for cooperating with regimes like that of the Shah of Iran or that of Saddam Hussein (when Iraq was a risk of being overrun by Iranian military forces).

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Suicide bomber attack in Pakistan

Things are heating up in Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf has finally begun some decisive movements against the radical Islamists in that country.

SWAT: At least 12 security men were killed and over 20 wounded in suicide attack over a security forces convoy in Swat on Sunday.
(The News)
President Musharraf is in a tight spot. There is plenty of sympathy for radical Islam in Pakistan, and Musharraf has been regularly targeted for assassination.

Here's to safety and success for the Pakistani military as they begin to try to clean out a gangrenous portion of Pakistan.