Earlier, I collected a series of 9/11 anniversary reflections from the press and the blogosphere. Many of them were moving but none were particularly novel. By that, I mean that everyone pretty much agreed that the day was horrible, changed a lot of things about the world, and reflected on people who were murdered that day.
Theres a different view out there, though, and its not just held by Muslim fanatics and our enemies across the globe but by some prominent lefties with large soapboxes.
Andy Rooney explains why the tragedy was really our fault:
The disaster on September 11th wasnt like any of those. It was manmade. Death by design. Some people who hated Americans set out to kill a lot of us and they succeeded
Americans are puzzled over why so many people in the world hate us. We seem so nice to ourselves. They do hate us though. We know that and were trying to protect ourselves with more weapons.
We have to do it I suppose but it might be better if we figured out how to behave as a nation in a way that wouldnt make so many people in the world want to kill us.
But, anyway, just a big hearty fuck you to the White House and the news media who have decided this day is largely a personal narrative about George Bush, a man who was almost entirely absent on that day then had a big giggle before falling asleep early. It isnt about him, and unless you were in New York or Washington or were close to people who were directly affected, its probably not about you either.
Kos himself echoes much the same sentiment, although in the context of personal reflection:
Its not about me, and its certainly not about Bush, who after his famous Pet Goat moment cowardly fled and hid out in Nebraska in fear the same kind of abject fear theyd spend the next five years selling to the American people.
For me, the worst part of the day was telling my mother, who had called me singing happy birthday, to please stop and go turn on the television. It was a jarring moment. She thought I was telling her to stop because I felt too old at 30. In reality, I felt like throwing up because the world was changing overnight, and not for the best.
Aside from the fact that the media views most commemorations of solemn events through the lens of the presidency, given that that officeholder is the de facto Head of State, I know of no one who thinks today is about President Bush. Unless its lefties who want to use the occasion to remind is that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose.
This isnt just the radical fringe of the Angry Left, either. . . .
There's lots more links at the link.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/11/2006 15:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So lemme see here, looks like some really original thoughts:
Rooney: "Why do they hate us, blah,blah,blah..."
Black: "Everything is Bush's fault, blah,blah,blah..."
Kos: "Everything is Bush's fault, blah,blah,blah..."
My God. The left's level of ignorance cannot be described in words.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/11/2006 19:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
While slightly off topic, (sorry Fred. If deemed inappropriate, please delete. I won't get angry) this seemed the best place for it...I normally lurk aorund here, but I would like some feedback.
In my Arabic Lit. class, I was assigned this weekend to read Jean Baudrillard's "The Spirit of Terrorism". Aren't I lucky. Not Arabic, and not literature either...
For those familiar with his writings on 9/11, are there any good links to counter-arguments out there? Books maybe? I would also love to hear your thoughts on him. I trust you Rantburgers more than google, and I certainly trust you more than my prof and my University library (Berkley of the Midwest anyone?), which has nothing of value, and indeed, nothing of worth. Feel free to email me with any help you might be able to give. (Headed Rantburg so I don't delete you, its my bulk account)
Thanks so much to everyone and sorry for thread-jacking a bit. Yes. Moonbats. Right. I've heard most of the 'arguments' at the link at my campus. Its really been quite frustrating trying have decent conversations with the liberals here.
This can be heavy going. Baudrillard is a postmodern, post-structuralist social critic of a certain European type. For him his concepts about the role of technology in shaping social experience is more real that actual people - not uncommon among the lit crit set.
You might like Alan Sokal's critique of him. Sokal is the physicist who made up a bunch of jargon-laden nonsense and got it published in a very prestigious critical theory journal a couple years ago. He's a leftist politically but dislikes the idiocy that passes for deep thought among some in the critical theory world.
(hat tip for some of this to my offspring who's swum in the critical theory waters)
Another way to think about his work is that he has written heavily on what he sees as the destructive force of globalization. IIUC, in his terrorism article he sees the 9/11 attacks as a justified reaction to the intrusions of a globalized economy and culture on Islam &/or Islamic cultures. Thus the attacks weren't murders of Americans, they were attacks on the intrusive global culture America promulgates and hence cannot be linked to religious fanaticism but rather to a justifiable reaction to oppressive capitalism. (more or less)
That might get you thinking about your reponse to him ...
#13
Thanks lotp and Phineter Thraviger1073! I really appreciate it. (and I agree Barb, especially after having had to read in all weekend) I've been trying to put this together all afternoon and the links helped me some more of the background I needed in order to put my response together.
Silly me, I thought I had registered for a literature class, not a philosophy one...
#14
'Twasn't either one, but indoctrination. Decide whether the argument or the grade is more important, dear, and come back to us often to regain your footing and report from the belly of the beast.
This is the best essay I've seen all week. Go read it all.
So it's been exactly five years since we all turned on the TV to watch that second plane strike the second tower and begin the 21st century in earnest. Where were you at that moment? And what were your immediate thoughts?
I know there have been a lot of weighty analyses of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and its meaning. I heard one Saturday on the radio, hosted jointly by NPR and the BBC, with listeners from all over the globe solicited to call in, collect, to offer their own perspectives. Frank Rich was a guest and seemed impressed enough by the dignity of the venue that he actually tried to restrain his Bush hatred and affect an objective point of view. Dorothy Rabinowitz was also on hand as the lone defender of (outmoded) 20th century traditions like patriotism and national security. . . .
. . . Still, it was interesting to hear the American pundits trying, for once, to be less partisan and more reflective about the difficulties America faces in trying to fight a war on terror in the current international climate. Even if it was all for show, the prospect of Frank Rich declaring that the policy decisions were extraordinarily difficult and unavoidably controversial was like the experience of rain after a long drought, almost palpably life-giving. What would the past five years have been like, I couldn't help wondering, if debate and criticism had proceeded atop the civil platform of agreement that the President was really trying to do his best in a terrible crisis that almost no one had anticipated? Imagine that everyone had been sober and serious all along, as if the responsibility were theirs and not someone else's. Imagine that the opposition to the administration's policies had been more substantive than personal, focused on alternative proposals rather than autopsies of irrevocable decisions past. Imagine that all of us were dealing with today's reality instead of pet grievances from months or years ago. Isn't it possible that the critics might have had more impact on events, that the defenders of American policy might have listened and responded more thoughtfully?
You can decide all these questions for yourselves, but I know I would have been more open to opposing views if their proponents had not insisted that doing the right thing required a first step of denouncing the president as a fool, a liar, an opportunist, and a closet tyrant. If I put aside the partisan emotions such postulates inspire, I have enough breathing room to perceive that my own views have changed again and again over the past five years. On September 11, 2001, I wanted to nuke Afghanistan, I wanted the world to tremble in fear of American military might, I wanted to go Roman Empire on the whole smelly, barbarian world. I wanted bin Laden and everyone he had ever met vaporized into a radioactive cloud. But Bush did not launch the B-52s and ICBMs. I was irate when I asked the question a lot of people just like me were asking at the time, "What is he waitng for? Just go DO it."
But you can't nuke a country of 15 million people because some of its residents killed 3,000 Americans. I would have recognized that fact if I had been the one making the decisions in the Oval Office. But I wasn't. I had the luxury of not being responsible for how the nation responded to an act of ultimate depravity and viciousness. Indeed, we have ALL had that luxury. All of us, that is, but the most vilified man on Planet Earth, the one man who has had to be continuously responsible for protecting the United States of America throughout each of the 2,628,000 minutes since the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. . . .
Go read it all, and be sure to do the homework he assigns.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/11/2006 17:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But you can't nuke a country of 15 million people because some of its residents killed 3,000 Americans.
Yes, you can. Arguably, you should.
As an example to others.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/11/2006 22:12 Comments ||
Top||
by James Taranto, "Best of the Web," Wall Street Journal (Boldface emphasis added.)
Gerald Ensley, a writer for the Tallahassee (Fla.) Democrat, has an Andy Rooney-esque essay titled "Yes, It Changed the World. But 9/11 Makes Me Angry." Fittingly, it appeared on the fifth anniversary of Sept. 10, 2001:
Soon, I hated 9/11. And as we observe tomorrow's fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, I still hate it. Just thinking about it makes me angry.
Not the kind of chest-puffing, red-white-and-blue anger about "How dare someone attack my country!" But more of a sullen, frustrated, impotent anger about "Why did someone have to ruin my country?"
I get angry that 9/11 spurred the passage of the Patriot Act. . . . I get angry about 9/11 because it led to overweening security measures at our airports and public buildings. . . . I get angry because 9/11 led us to a war in Iraq. . . . I get angry because 9/11 emboldened and expanded Islamic extremism. . . . I get angry with 9/11 because it hurt our economy. . . . I get angry with 9/11 because it feeds the shallow, self-centered side of me.
Look on the bright side; at least the man is self-aware!
You know what makes us angry? We live on the sixth floor, and the elevator in our apartment building has been broken for two weeks! Granted, that has nothing to do with 9/11, but if Ensley can be shallow and self-centered, so can we.
It was often said at the time that 9/11 changed everything. That turns out to have been an exaggeration. One thing it did not change is elite liberal opinion--as represented by the press, academia and the Democratic Party--which has fallen back on the adversarial attitudes it developed in the late Cold War era, which is to say the era of Vietnam, Watergate and their aftermath.
Partly, we suppose, this is a matter of intellectual laziness. But partly it is because of an illusory similarity between the Cold War and the war on terror. If you assume 9/11 was a one-off, then the terrorist threat is a distant, abstract one, easy to move to the back of your mind while arguing about such trivia as the infringement of terrorists' civil liberties.
Thus Los Angeles Times TV critic Samantha Bonar can sneer, in reviewing ABC's flawed Miniseries "The Path to 9/11," that "according to 'The Path,' the Clinton administration was too concerned with such trifles as respecting international laws and treaties, protecting civil liberties, following diplomatic protocol, displaying cultural sensitivity and pursuing larger goals (like Mideast peace) to bring down the bad guys." Which is an entirely accurate description of the Clinton administration, even if the picture takes liberties with the facts.
The italicized clause in the paragraph before the preceding one is what the experts call "a big if." Our enemies, of course, did not intend 9/11 to be a one-off; if it is, it is only because the government--that is to say, the Bush administration--has thus far succeeded in preventing another attack on U.S. soil. Liberals' blasé approach to the terror threat will be wholly unsustainable in the event of another attack. Thus, paradoxically, opposition to the antiterror effort remains alive only because of that effort's success.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/11/2006 17:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
OWG now, D *** it, CONCRETE BLOCK UNITS, Hotels MOtels Homes + Condos etal., are in state of open rebellion and self-declared anarchy. Notify the Global Central Commission and Amerikan Global Securiat on Concrete Security-Awareness to send in the troops. KNOW YOUR CONCRETE ENEMY, D *** IT.
#1
Is anybody else infuriated that Pataki, Bloomberg, Corzine, the Port Authority and the power that be are dishonoring the memory of the lost by not rebuilding now? Enough is enough.
#3
The idiots who wanted to install a memorial to all the bad things the US has done to the world are a major cause for the holdup. Like mildew, they keep coming back and have to be disinfected.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
09/11/2006 15:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I want towers, not a memorial.
I agree completely, Iblis. Rebuild the towers identically using modern technology. Let them stand as a defiant capitalist thumb-in-the-eye to terrorism. I cannot imagine a better tribute to all of the people who perished five years ago. Had I been among them, this would have been my definite wish.
If people refuse to move in out of fear, relocate the UN there.
#6
Two towers; taller, mightier, more beautiful. Fuck those swine that want an anti-American 'memorial' built; they have no right to ask such a thing and certainly no right to impose this abomination on others.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
09/11/2006 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Rebuild the towers identically using modern technology. Let them stand as a defiant capitalist thumb-in-the-eye to terrorism.
Obviously the right thing to do.
and in the Plaza with the dented sculpture a medium sized wall-type memorial in between.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
09/11/2006 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Tony (UK) the one moment this morning, as I dressed to go to work of course, with the television on, that made me stop, and finally the tears came, was when VPres Cheney and his wife walked out of the White House, and he had Margaret Thrasher on his arm. She, so steadily in heels on that grass, arm solidly in Cheney's but not gripping, walking purposing forward, seeing her determination and the hurt in her eyes and her walk. A walk that is a salute to all of American.
And it is appreciated. A great friend she has been to us, and continues to be.
#1
They really got it. As I look back at the photo's, especially the one in today's "Day by Day", I can't help the feeling of guilt. These are the folks most here, on this blog, have sworn to defend. We missed it, be it politics, poor intel, or just dumb luck, we failed to protect them in their moment of need. A sad moment in time, where we were asleep, fighting over monica's dress and if Bill had sex or not. I don't think any of the 3,000' families really care about what had us preoccupied. So wrapped up in partisan politics that we never saw, or better said, willing to pay attention to our enemies. Now we are so wrapped up with who is to blame that we have forgotten we are at war. Blame Clinton, blame Bush, hell - blame me, but now, right now we need to be talking about destroying our enemy and insuring this will not happen again.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/11/2006 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
Today is the fifth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, that took 3,000 innocent lives. At the time, more than a few commentators predicted that, henceforth, our era would be divided between pre-September 11 and post-September 11.
Thus, we need to know how things have changed, if at all, in these past five years. What lessons have we learned, and how have these lessons changed the way we live?
The answers are mixed.
The good news is that the terrorists have failed in their attempt to disrupt our way of life. After the shock of September 11 subsided, Americans returned to normalcy, which is a good thing. We refused to give the jihadists what they wanted: that is, frightened acquiescence to their agenda. We took sensible precautions to increase our security and went after al-Qaeda, which has prevented further attacks on the United Statesmuch credit due to our government.
The bad news is that five years and hundreds of deaths laterin places like Bali, Madrid, and Londonmany of us in the West still dont understand what were up against.
This lack of understanding can be seen in the recent flap over the presidents use of the expression Islamo-fascists. As Ive told you, the term fascist can properly be applied to the likes of bin Laden. The presidents critics, for the most part, dont deny this.
Instead, their objection is that the term is inflammatory and offensive. They think that an acceptable combination of rhetoric and concessions will divert Islamist radicals from their path. This is dangerous nonsense. As the London Telegraph put it, quoting an Islamist leader, our enemy isnt trying to exact concessions from us; its trying to eliminate us.
Thats why European attempts to link the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the war on terror are absurd. Even if that conflict were resolved, that wouldnt satisfy the jihadists. First of all, they want Israel annihilated. Secondly, the jihadists goals extend well beyond the Middle East to Europe and to the United States.
The failure to understand the threat stems, in part, from the Wests own loss of faith. For many of us, religion is something we door dont dodepending on how it makes us feel. We dont look to religion to tell us how we should live our lives, and, thus, we fail to understand how religion, and the worldview it inspires, might affect other people.
Thus, the British, after allowing jihadist preachers to operate freely, are now shocked to learn that their citizens pose the biggest threat to U.S. security, as the foiled plot to bomb airliners illustrates.
People who have stopped taking their religion seriously have trouble appreciating what other peoples religion might drive them to do. And its not just Europe. At home, our secular elites totally miss the point. When they are not downplaying the threat, they are making grotesque comparisons between Islamist radicals and politically active Christians.
On a day like this, we ought not only remember what happened but why it happened, as well. Understanding that why starts with taking religion, and the worldviews it produces, seriously and recognizing Islamo-fascism for what it is: a deadly and dangerous enemy that wants to destroy us.
The choice of location was provocative; clearly intentionally so. However, he Muslims didn't react very well to the provocation.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/11/2006 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Clearly racist - after all, look how people rose to the defense of Timothy McVeigh and his white skin when he committed a similar ...
OK, never mind. Kind of odd the folks at the mosque thought bin Laden's race was the only possible objection you could have to his career.
Posted by: just sayin ||
09/11/2006 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They may be Muzzies, but they're neither blind, nor are they stupid. Similar to the trains in Germany, in a word, they know what works best in this country.
#4
Well, the MMM (mythical, moderate, muslim) remains in hiding.
This was the perfect opportunity to show that they really are Americans. They should have rushed outside with their own shoes to show that they really think OBL and his ilk are a tiny minority of fanatics that don't represent all muzzies.
Instead they showed that their beliefs are closer to the worst of the Islamofascists than they are to American ideals.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion is to pull a Wagon Train on them.....Head 'em up, move 'em out!
#6
Outside "The House of Jihad" in Culver City, California, protestors hung an effigy of the mass murderer Osama bin Laden. Being in denial, the folks inside said that there had to be some sort of Joooooooo that was the real killer, just like in the OJ Simpson case, and not to blame such a heroic figure such as Osama.
Osama, they said, just wants to sit in his cave, eat goat kebabs, and use his satellite phone to plan operations without the threat US special forces finding him, beheading him, and selling lottery tickets to win the head.
It is believed, you see, Osama's head will make an excellent door stop, that is... unless you live in an area when there are scavengers such as coyotes or turkey vultures, who would steal it, consume it and thank you for the delicious treat.
Posted by: Tell D Truth ||
09/11/2006 18:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Someone should go to the 'House of Jihad', that cesspool of virulent anti-americanism and terrorism support revered place of worship and contemplation, and burn the m*therf*cker to the ground engage the folks in 'meaningful' dialog.
Soon after the September 11 attacks, the United States forced the world's countries to make a choice: Cooperate with us against the Islamist global terrorism, or else be considered our enemy. Pakistan made its decision quickly and joined the U.S. in its "war on terror." Five years into the war, however, it is not clear where Pakistan really stands.
Some facts are irrefutable and might be considered as solid proofs of Pakistan's loyalty to America's war on terror: a) About a quarter of all Al-Qa'ida members detained in Guantanamo Bay were arrested in Pakistan; b) Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers were killed during military operations against various Islamist groups; and c) Several assassination attempts have been carried out by Islamist terror movements against President Pervez Musharraf in the past few years.
The United States considers Pakistan as an ally. In fact, it is currently conducting a joined naval exercise with Pakistan. So why, one might ask, should we even raise doubts as to the level of Pakistan's commitment to fighting terrorism?
To answer this question and to better clarify the relations between the Pakistan army and the various terror groups in the country, The Media Line (TML) spoke to several terror experts. The answers, as always, were varied, while the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.
A terrorist and a freedom fighter usually use the same means to promote their cause. In fact, a terrorist is a freedom fighter, depending on which side of the fence you are on. We will return to this semantic difference after one short background explanation.
In 1947 British India was dissolved, giving birth to modern-day India and Pakistan. From that period onward, Pakistan's first major regional dispute was born, as Kashmir, a disputed area between the two states, was given by the British to India. During the 1980s, Pakistan got involved in a second major regional dispute, this time, to its north. For almost 10 years, the Soviets were at war with Afghanistan. Wanting to prevent India from allying with Afghanistan against them, the Pakistanis aspired to the creation of an Islamist state in Afghanistan.
The Pakistani state, which was ruled by its army for most of its existence, became highly involved in both these regional conflicts. The way it did so was by means of supporting and training local Islamist movements, to be used as proxies by the Pakistan army. Islamist groups such as Lashkar-e-Teiba (LeT) and Jeish-e-Muhammad (JeM) thus became freedom fighters in their quest to free Kashmir. At the beginning of the 1980s, Musharraf then a colonel in the Pakistan army became closely involved in the army's strategic aim of preparing Afghani Islamist fighters for their anti-Soviet war. These freedom fighters were known as Taliban, which later took control over Afghanistan, and their allies: a small group known as Al-Qa'ida.
Geopolitical reasons may provide some explanations for the Pakistani support of Islamist movements. But that is not all. Speaking at a conference of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last year, Pakistani scholar, Dr Hussein Haqqani, told listeners that, for national unity, his country turned to Islam instead of the consensus of the people.
"The search for identity and the need for an ideological base for the country required a movement towards ideology. In the process, ideological Islamists became allies of the military over a long period of time."
According to Haqqani, the infrastructure that was created to support Jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir is still intact to this day.
After the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida were transformed in the eyes of Pakistan from freedom fighters into terrorists at least that was the official line. After all, the equation was clear: If you were for Al-Qa'ida, you were against the U.S., and clearly Pakistan had made its choice. But did it?
Editor of the South Asia Intelligence Review (SAIR), Dr. Ajai Sahni, believes it did not. "It is clear that Pakistan's principal interests are in continuing to exploit the local and regional terrorist groups, while it tries to control international terrorist groups," Sahni told The Media Line. "However, this distinction between the international and domestic [terror groups] is completely irrational. You can see that some of the arrests that have taken place in the UK, in the U.S. or in Madrid were of terrorist groups which are supposed to be local; for instance, Lashkar-e-Taiba."
From his New Delhi-based office, Sahni explains that, "the moment you have a universal ideology such as extremist Islam, you cannot contain the consequences in a domestic or a regional context."
This is where the Pakistani predicament begins. While it is fighting some terror groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida, the Pakistan army is much less determined when it comes to local groups such as LeT or JeM. The latter two groups are fighting India for Kashmir, fulfilling Pakistan's interests in the region.
But for quite some time now, LeT and JeM have developed aspirations exceeding Kashmir. According to Sahni, one explanation for these aspirations comes from their core essence of being Islamist movements, which bear a universal ideology. But that is not all. Located in Pakistan, LeT is not only ideologically, but also geographically close to the International Islamist Front, led by Al-Qa'ida.
Prof. Talat Wizarat, a scholar from Karachi University in Pakistan, presented The Media Line with a totally different view. In Wizarats eyes , Al-Qa'ida is not only an insignificant force in Pakistan, but it also has no connections with local Islamist groups.
"As far as Al-Qaida is concerned, I seriously wonder if they still exist, because even their middle-rank leadership has been eliminated. If they are there, they have no means of communicating with each other. Although they might have plans to regroup, right now I do not think they are a fighting group, and if they have any linkages with other fighting groups, they are insignificant."
Wizarat is employed in the International Relations Department of Karachi University. Experts outside Pakistan claim that the country's universities are controlled by the military regime. That may explain some of Wizarat's views and terminology.
"As far as Lashkar-e-Taiba is concerned, it is a true freedom-fighting movement, supporting the freedom struggle of Kashmir. It does not have anything to do with Al-Qaida or other groups fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan or in Iraq," maintains Wizarat.
She continues that the Pakistan Army is doing a remarkable job in its "so-called war on terror," which is very unpopular in the domestic front. Wizarat even asserts that, in her personal view, the army leadership is "unfortunately not drawing any distinction between the Kashmiri freedom fighters and other groups which the Americans accuse of being terrorists."
While Wizarat places the Pakistan army and the Islamist groups on two opposite sides, others portray them as allies.
Indias Sahni is clear on the subject: "The Inter Services Intelligence (ISI the Pakistan Army's intelligence corps) constitutes the most significant terrorist organization in south Asia. All the other names that you will hear whether it is the Taliban on the one side, or Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harakat-ul-Mujahidin and Jeish-e-Muhammad on the other side all these groups are instrumentalities of the Pakistani state and are all directly controlled by the ISI."
In 2003, Jeish-e-Muhammad, which, according to Sahni was a group supported by Pakistan army, tried to assassinate Musharraf.
"Pakistan is trying to manipulate an instrument which is very imperfect," explains Sahni. "They do not have absolute control over all groups even over those groups they themselves have created. And even within the groups they [seem to] control completely there are some renegade elements."
This was done not long after Pakistan announced its alliance with the U.S, which is considered an enemy of Islam by some radical movements such as Jeish-e-Muhammad. Nevertheless, asserts Sahni, "Pakistan does not show any indication of disengaging from the terrorist groups, which, in its assessment, are serving the Pakistani states purposes and objectives."
Sahni's views in this regard should be clear to the reader by now. But other experts The Media Line spoke to do not share these views.
According to ICPVTRs Gunaratna, "people in the West must get this right they must support General Musharraf even though he is a dictator and even though there is a lack of democracy in Pakistan. They must work with Pakistan because it is now facing a severe problem General Musharraf is doing a good job with the limited resources he has."
Haqqani, who is the author of Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, also believes the United States must remain engaged in Pakistan. But in his opinion, it is keeping all its eggs in one basket.
The U.S. "is putting all its confidence in one individual, and General Musharraf is expected to turn the Titanic in a very narrow stream. It is not easy and it is not going to happen. The Islamists and the Pakistani military have deep-rooted relations and the political generals in Pakistan also look at the Islamists as allies, both for domestic politics as well as for regional politics."
"Al-Qa'ida is working very closely with Lashkar-e-Teiba, head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR), Dr. Rohan Gunaratna, told The Media Line. Gunaratna, who is one of the world's leading experts on Al-Qa'ida, asserts that the organization's real strength is in its "ability to work with different Jihad groups in Kashmir, in the Philippines, in Chechnya, in Algeria, in Sudan, in Iraq and in other countries around the world. Al-Qa'ida multiplies its force by linking up with associated groups in Asia, Africa and in the Middle East, and certainly Al-Qa'ida has infiltrated some of the Pakistani groups," Gunaratna says.
By Yaniv Berman on Monday, September 11, 2006
Posted by: john ||
09/11/2006 11:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The pakistan army, terror groups - friends or foes?
How about "indistinguishable"?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/11/2006 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Supermarket cashiers and deliverymen: friends or foes?
The biggest obstacle to winning the GWOT is the majority in Western Civilization who believe that al-Qaeda is unpopular among Muslims, and that we have firm and useful allies in their countries. And we can't expect to stop terror financing abroad as long as we allow Homeland-jihadis - members of CAIR, ISNA, AMC, etc - to use funds acquired here, to spread terror abroad. What an example! However, the Jakarta Post tells it as it is.
"...As America showed the world about its poor understanding of Islam, bin Laden's biggest "missile" fired at the U.S. -- which it failed to recognize -- was the unleashing of religious emotion and the fanning of hatred toward the West.
Under the banner of Islam, bin Laden enticed the diverse Muslim communities across the globe into believing that they were a single front united against the West. He appears to have harvested thousands of disillusioned youths in the process, left out by the scourge of globalization and failed governments..."
#2
Under the banner of Islam, bin Laden enticed the diverse Muslim communities across the globe into believing that they were a single front united against the West. He appears to have harvested thousands of disillusioned youths in the process
And we will kill them all. End of story. It becomes increasingly clear that, should Islam prove unable to abandon its quest for a global caliphate, the price tag of 9-11 will be the Muslim holocaust.
Well, we are getting better at understanding. And when majority of us will understand, youse mooselimbs won't like the result. Well, it won't be matter of like or dislike. You won't have that opportunity.
I think the world is beginning to understand Islam. The Muslim world should fear this. When the tipping point is reached (soon I think), the real war will begin, and that war will be a war of extermination.
#7
The Jakarta Post editorialist is candid and pro-active. Indonesians should be embarassed at the low sentences given to the Bali (1 and 2) bombers. let's see how they like aid leverage.
eptember 11, 2006 -- IT was to be "The Mother of All Raids" (ghazvat al-gha zavat) that would bring down "The House of the Spider" as promised by the sheik in his mountain hideout.
The "raid" would terrify the "infidel" and hasten his demise just as the armies of Islam had destroyed the Persian and Byzantine empires with a series of ghazavat 14 centuries ago.
This time, the empire that would crumble under the weight of Islam's attack was the American "Great Satan," which had been running away from its enemies for decades. It had run away from Saigon, Tehran, Beirut, Mogadishu, Kohbar and Aden. Even when attacked in the heart of New York, its real capital city, it had done little more than nurse its chagrin with petulance.
Continued on Page 49
With Rantburgs permission, I have been given the privilege to post this article in its entirety. There can be no understanding of how overwhelming and pervasive the threat of Islam is to our modern world without a thorough reading of this well-written piece. No, not Islamism. No, not Islamofascism. Islam, plain and simple in its daily and unchanging form. The one all Muslims adhere to and look towards in their pursuit of religious global conquest.
On this fifth anniversary of the 9-11 atrocity, it has become ever more clear that Islam has absolutely no intention of imposing any sort of reforms upon itself. The thundering silence emanating from the Muslim world stands as resounding proof of this fact. Ever since 9-11 we have been subjected to a regular stream of other equally vile and monstrous atrocities around the world.
Furthermore, every single day that passes greets us with the preventable death of yet another 3,000 people who perish for want of funds and labor currently being diverted toward fighting Islamic terrorism. In a feat of monumental hubris and the sort of misdirection or prestidigitation worthy of a Houdini, Islam had foisted the job of fighting terrorism upon the Western world. We have no responsibility for ridding Islam of its demons. We have only one obligation and that is self-preservation.
Islam has made patently clear its unwillingness to purge any violent jihadists from within its ranks. We have been confronted with not just an abject refusal but continued covert and overt support for terrorism. Be it Saudi Arabias revolving door policy, Indonesias insulting sentence reductions for convicted terrorists or Pakistans granting of de facto political refuge for al Qaeda mastermind, Osama bin Laden, all of these acts constitute a sworn commitment to the continued practice of global terrorism.
Throughout this conflict, both politicians and religious leaders alike have constantly sought assistance from the moderate Muslim. To date, the near total absence of substantive help from this quarter in the fight against Islamic terrorism has highlighted important questions as to why greater cooperation has not been forthcoming from this ostensibly peaceful group. The following article puts to rest any notions we might have of looking for moderate Muslims to provide direct action in ending global terrorism. Continued on Page 49
#2
.com, a long time ago you asked about my political background. I gave you my best answers in the thread you posted on Saturday titled, "I Just Called To Say I Love You ". I hope you had a chance to catch it.
We've all come to this point, the spectrum of views among those who realize the stakes involved, via wildly convoluted paths. I have to admit I always find I have doubts when I see someone post that they've always been True Red Conservatives, lol. That's me just providing myself a little cover, lol...
Since I voted for Carter when he won, I freely admit I was once a prime candidate for Moonbat Central, may Gawd have mercy on my tortured sole, Grid Willing, lol. My "protest vote" came in 1992 when I voted, via absentee ballot from my first tour in Saudi, for Ross Perot. I had discovered that my Arabian Adventure was romantic idiocy, but I still did not fully comprehend who and what they were. In 2000 I did my idiot-protest best by not voting at all. Gore was a dipshit and there was no sign then of either the seriousness of the WoT nor that Bush would step up to the plate and deliver. I saw nothing to engage me.
But my second tour in Saudi brought out a new me. 9/11 and Bush's sudden transformation. The scales falling from my eyes about who and what we were facing. A full 90°+ change of direction.
I echo your thoughts and thanks regards Fred and RB. We are incredibly lucky he was around so long ago and created such an awesome forum.
We're definitely on the same page in the "all the marbles" war, bro. We've all helped each other get there. I owe you the same level of thanks because you challenged the hell out of all the "pat" and easy answers - just as valuable as any other contribution by anyone here. We got here the hard way - by challenging our own suppositions, prejudices, and lazy un-intellectual views. Those are infinitely harder than going with the flow and explaining away those inconvenient bits when our flawed world-view causes cognitive dissonance. So back at ya, bro. I owe you the same.
#4
The one thing that preserves my sanity is that I have never, not ever thought that America deserved 9-11. For all of our country's mistakes and second-best deals in fighting communism, I have always believed in Democracy and free market capitalism as the most enlightened form of civilization there is.
My experiences here at Rantburg have only served to cement these notions and I, too, give Fred Pruitt my deepest thanks. You have nothing to be humbled about, .com. even as in the past you have attacked my positions, it's the old "what doesn't kill me only delays the inevitable makes me stronger" routine.
I'm truly glad to see you trotting about the old stomping grounds here. I'm confident that I speak for more than just my own self in saying so. I'm particularly glad we see more eye to eye than in the past.
Someone once asked my why I'm so bloody obnoxious. I replied that "it filters out the fainthearted". It is also said that "character is a diamond that scratches every other stone". Well, that's my excuse for being so d@mn abrasive. What's yours?
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/11/2006 7:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I have believed that all Islam need a dirt nap for some time now.
Now, I wait for our own officals to allow, if not suggest that we destroy mosques and kill muzzies.
BUT, today in America, new mosques are being built.
Gentlemen, we are so far out in front, they think we made a wrong turn. Sucks, duddn it ?
#8
The readers digest version Bobby is that Muslim aint going to go out of their way to help us against their fellow muslims. Why? Because they think they can live with the outcome either way or are too big a pussies to choose sides. In that manner they remind me of the Dhimicrats who hold "What THEY think about the U.S." more important than the survival of the U.S. God help us if the Liberal get in charge because they would run any program or op through a group like CAIR, the un, or the eu and would gvie them veto power over our security.
#9
"The one thing that preserves my sanity is that I have never, not ever thought that America deserved 9-11."
Zen, that's the one thing that makes you an American. We are indeed the world's 'last best hope'. Can any other nation in this world turn a undeserved critical eye so harshly on itself, time and time again, and still survive? Hell no.
#12
The Ahmadiyats are nearly extinct and will be. they have been branded as Apostates and to islam there is no forgiveness for apostates (since when is Allah forgiving anyways? ) but ya see the true moderates are themselves outsiders and incapable of reforming the truest form of islam. Best way to rid ourselves of islam is mass deporation of "true" muslims.
#13
Leave the cult or leave America. Is there any other way? But wait, the armies of LLL will spring to their defense - as if they care that much regarding religion(other than i-slam, ie.) - at the very first suggestion of such an unconstitutional idea!
#14
Zen, that's the one thing that makes you an American.
So be it. That's enough for me. I've had to sit and watch the absolutely astounding cognitive dissonance of a gay man bragging about voting for republican in 2000 because he knew how Bush would make such a shambles of things that the democrats would be a shoo-in the next time around. I asked him if he really thought that was the best possible thing on his part for advancing gay rights. He then went on to say that America deserved 9-11 for "sticking our nose where it didn't belong!" I replied how bringing several Middle East countries out of the stone-age by developing their petrochemical industries could hardly qualify us as nosy busybodies. He remained very quiet when I went on to ask him how his political strategy had worked in the 2004 elections.
He then refused to listen to my arguments about the dangers of Islam because I had not read the Koran and another liberal there who had was insisting that Islam was the Religion of Peace [spit]. He, along with a serving member of the army who was present and agreed with him, finally summed up his diatribe with how whenever traveling abroad, he poses as a Canadian so he won't have to take flack about being American.
I asked him point blank if he was ashamed to be American and they both admitted as such. I could only shake my head and observe aloud how their self-loathing was simply revolting.
The slightly happy ending to this story is that on another occasion I managed, only after two solid hours of carefully structured reasoning and with two other unbiased people moderating the discussion, to finally convince this gay liberal that all he could look forward to, should America fall to Islam, was a swift and brutal death by stoning for his homosexual practices. This is the sort of insanity that I have had to fight around me and somehow retain my love of country and pride in being American.
Fortunately, through the incredible sacrifices of untold numbers of our soldiers and other individuals striving to preserve our nation, the task is a lot easier than many might think. I love the United States and cannot imagine living anywhere else on earth. Americas role as sole remaining superpower is a direct and unequivocal result of its constitutional law and elected representation. The foresight of this countrys founding fathers was nothing short of incredible. That they were able to assemble such an enduring and all-encompassing document as our constitution amazes me every time I think about it. It has led me to believe that democracy and elected government are fundamental human rights that must be installed around the world.
We are indeed the world's 'last best hope'. Can any other nation in this world turn a undeserved critical eye so harshly on itself, time and time again, and still survive? Hell no.
Word, mcsegeek1. Americas capacity for self-criticism is unrivaled, almost to the point of being crippling at times, but light years beyond that of any other country. Our generosity to friend and foe alike is something that so many other nations manage to ignore, yet they will be first in line at our door when disaster strikes. Somehow, Americans must finally realize that only through national unity and pride in our country can we have any hope of surviving. I will close with an excerpt from Abraham Lincolns address before the Young Mens Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois on January 27th of 1838.
This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.
How then shall we perform it? At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
#15
Small NB : this is an interesting reading, and so are the comments, but the writer is actually the excellent Fjordman; Baron Bodissey is but one of the editor of Gates of Vienna who puts his writings online, unless I'm severely mistaken.
"on another occasion I managed, only after two solid hours of carefully structured reasoning "
It's that two hours of structured reasoning that I can't seem to do.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
09/11/2006 20:52 Comments ||
Top||
#17
anonymous5089, thank you for clarifying about the author, Fjordman. Credit given where credit is due. And Fjordman deserves a round of vigorous applause for issuing such a well-written piece just before this somber anniversary.
Before closing I wanted to address mhw's concerns in post #10 about the listed Musilim minorities. We are in a battle for our very lives. The combined total of cited Muslim sects probably does not exceed even one or two million people. Please feel to correct me if I'm wrong. Such numbers represent about 0.10% of this world's Muslim population.
Islam is well over one billion people and the vast majority of them have tacitly or openly committed themselves to the destruction of the West. I refuse to accept this. While I hope that those few peaceful Muslims can be left out of our sights as we fight this war, it cannot be my primary concern. We are confronted with 25% of this world's population wanting to make their religion 100% of the world's faith.
We will soon be faced with the tipping point. This will come when the trouble of living with Islam outweighs the trouble of simply exterminating it for once and all. I have now reached that tipping point and need no further atrocities to convince me.
Thank you, everyone, for dropping in on this thread. I'll be printing out Fjordman's piece and distributing it to some more of the people I know. Last and not least, thank you to Rantburg and Fred Pruitt for this opportunity to share such important tools in the fight against Islam.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
