| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks & Islam |
| 'We Don't Need to Fight, We Are Taking Over!' |
| 2005-07-26 |
| The bombings two week ago in London concentrate the mind on three questions, all of them exceedingly difficult, and the first two of which profoundly complicate the all-important third. "We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" ["Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist] said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God." The first difficult question is: Is this the authentic voice of Islam? And it is a question that no non-Muslim can presume to properly answer. If I answered, "Emphatically yes, this is the authentic voice of Islam: and it is also the voice of our enemy," men would rise in righteous anger at my presumption. But when our leaders -- non-Muslims to a man -- pronounce in solemn tones, just as confidently, "No; Islam is a religion of peace," there are no charges of presumption. What we can say confidently, while yet avoiding the presumption, is that those who believe that "civilization" should be "brought" to us by the gruesome massacre of London commuters, or Spanish commuters, or New York office-workers, believe this because, over and above it, they believe the claims of Islam. In short, we non-Muslims (while we are still free to speak our minds) can appropriately say that our enemies strike against us in the name of Islam; they find their inspiration, their motivation, their justification, in the precepts of this great religion which has stood as the adversary of our once-unified civilization for many a long century. It may be that they have perverted the teachings of this religion; it may be that they have misunderstood some of its ambiguous teachings; but it may also be that they are faithfully applying those teachings. Again a non-Muslim is in no position to judge of this. The second question goes to the very heart of the theoretical framework American leaders have sketched as a solution to the problems of the Muslim world. In brief, it calls into question the whole solution itself, and may force us back to the drawing broad, so to speak, if we are serious about facing it. The question is this. If it is demonstrated, as now seems pretty clear, that the perpetrators of the London bombings were British citizens or legal residents, will there be any reflection on what this means for the neoconservative theory that democracy is the cure for Islamic terrorism? If, in other words, the perpetrators of these bombings were citizens or long-time residents of one of the world's most stable and historic democracies, and thus partakers of all liberty and equality that is offered as the panacea for the troubles of the Muslim world, what does it say for the plausibility of said theory that London's first suicide bombers were reared up in the very cradle of Western liberal democracy? Just maybe, it says that there is something unique about Islam that confounds our facile universalism, something unique and ancient about Islam that renders nugatory the easy platitudes so dear to us, something unique and ineradicable that reveals (yet again) that there are deeper things to stir the hearts of men than material prosperity and free elections. But here is the really pulverizing question -- pulverizing not least because it is so muddled by the difficulty of the foregoing two. But being muddled, it is no less important. By now, every free nation in the world still possessed of its senses knows it must face this self-interrogation: Are we or are we not going permit (or perhaps continue to permit) the emergence, within our midst, of totalitarian Islam? Again I deliberately leave open the question of whether "totalitarian Islam" really means "Islam in the modern world" or merely "a perversion of Islam in the modern world." But to repeat: The people of the free nations of the world, the citizens of the West (or her descendents if in fact the West is no more), are now confronted with sufficient evidence that the efforts to call totalitarian Islam into existence in every free nation are well underway; that such efforts will be materially supported from the home bases of totalitarian Islam, and may be spiritually supported by the very nature of Islam as such*; and that those efforts can, at least to some degree, be encouraged or discouraged by the actions of our own governments. The instinct of most of us is not even to face the question, to decline the self-interrogation altogether, and get on with our barbeques and reality shows; but face it we must, because ultimately the threat it signifies is neither fleeting nor mild, but rather persistent and existential. The answer we should give is this. We -- whatever other free nations choose to do or not do -- are going to put certain considerable obstacles in the way of totalitarian Islam; we at least are not going to encourage its development on our shores; we at least are going to say, in the manner republics "say" things publicly, such that it is clear to the leaders of this movement, its sympathizers and facilitators, both here and abroad, to the world at large, and most importantly to ourselves, that we will not tolerate totalitarian Islam. Rather, we will place very substantial burdens and abridgements, of varying social, political and legal character, upon those holding the beliefs associated with totalitarian Islam. We will make the price for sympathy with it very high indeed. We will not extend to it our beloved constitutional and civil rights; we will not, to the extent possible, let its sympathizers and facilitators, much less its foot soldiers and officers, into our country, and we will deport with dispatch those already here; we will exclude its representatives from service in our government, status in our society, safety under our laws; we will, in short, prohibit totalitarian Islam, in thought, word and deed. Now we will, to be sure, make every effort to distinguish between our real enemies and those merely linked to them by accident of birth or confession. We have always been a generous country, and we will take heed not to forsake that generosity now, not least because we know that extending it to the right people will help us in this war immensely. We will be discerning, and when failing to discern, genuinely contrite. But we will give no quarter to our enemy. We will make him fear: fear that we are onto him, fear that we have turned his neighbors against him, fear that we have made him our agent without his knowing, fear that perhaps this radical Islam thing may be more trouble than it's worth -- or better: fear that, after all, it may be a little off in its apprehension of the duties of man to God. And make no mistake: this is no mere matter of Free Speech. The Islamist being struck at is generally not the Islamist attempting to exercise his constitution right to free speech; it is rather the Islamist who, having given his allegiance wholly to totalitarian Islam, has acted to systematically conceal this fact. We will not merely abridge his freedom of speech; we will also abridge his freedom of thought. Now often the way a republic speaks is through legislation, and if legislation is called for, let our politicians find some time in their busy schedules to actually legislate. This is tough stuff: no one said it would be easy. If we must write laws to exclude totalitarian Islam from First Amendment protections under "clear and present danger" precedents, let it be done. If we must write laws to exclude totalitarian Islam from Equal Protection considerations, let it be done. Would such things be delicate business? Indeed it would: among the most delicate we as a people have ever undertaken. But that, friends, is the burden of self-government. And even if legislation along these (admittedly a bit shocking) lines is never enacted -- even if it is never even really considered -- we as a people must face the question I posed above: Are we or are we not going permit the emergence, within our midst, of totalitarian Islam? We must face it and answer, such that most everyone understands, No. Paul J. Cella III edits the weblog, Cella's Review. * I know this sort of talk makes many people, even some of my own political allies and friends, very nervous -- heck it makes me nervous. But I will not close this question; will not even pretend that it is a question we infidels can close. The true answer, I fear, is quite indifferent to our nervousness. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #4 Consider the practice of republican Rome. In times of war, a dictator was chosen to lead (a return to totalitarianism to meet a crisis that representative government was less able to deal with). In WWII certain "rights" and privileges were suspended. Perhaps, in this (officially undeclared as opposed to actually) undeclared war, it's time to consider more stringent methods against declared and undeclared internal and external enemies than our democracy would ordinarily tolerate. |
| Posted by: Omailing Ulavirt6453 2005-07-26 15:43 |
| #3 "Are we or are we not going permit the emergence, within our midst, of totalitarian Islam? We must face it and answer, such that most everyone understands, No." A shift from Democracy to a more Authoritarian regime must be the last choice to defeat any form of totalitarianism. Diplomats make careers out of maintaining a perception of the status quo. And Western leaders have traditionally lacked the political will to overcome the diplomats tactics. The homegrown obstacles to such a shift will be even more prevalent then the homegrown enemies. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-07-26 12:37 |
| #2 Blair Ignored Most Obvious Lesson of 9/11 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/26/101845/102 by leveymg [Subscribe] Tue Jul 26th, 2005 at 07:18:45 PDT Roll up known cells, and keep "friendly" Intel agencies on a very short leash. leveymg's diary :: :: Tony knows damned well why 9/11 happened. During the summer of 2001, the CIA, the Saudis, and the Israelis were running several loosely-coordinated penetration operations against al-Qaeda and each other inside the US. Other intelligence services were watching. The President was given the option of rolling up the UBL cells - but, for his own reasons, Bush declined to issue that order. So, in order to keep the game going, US counter-terrorism accepted the risks of allowing the 19 to enter the country -- the regular "gumshoe" FBI were intentionally kept out of the loop, and the Bureau liaison at CTC was ordered not to put out alerts. Not knowing what the hell else to do, FBI HQ basically stalled all ongoing CT investigations. The WTC and Pentagon attacks proceeded unhindered. The lessons were clear. All those double-agents, agents provocateur, consensual monitoring, and simulations created a huge opportunity for someone to put together a workable operational plan. You remove the opportunity by rounding up everyone who might be taken down. You watch the rest very closely. You lock out opposing intelligence services, and keep allies on a very short leash. Tony Blair ignored these obvious lessons, and the London Bombings occurred as a result. The second wave of attacks - with the unexploded minitions - were something else, something perhaps more sinister. The buildup to 7/7 involved several US double-agents. This is almost pathetically obvious. Just read between the lines below, you'll see exactly what happened. ********************* Effort here to charge London suspect was blocked By Hal Bernton and David Heath Seattle Times staff reporters The Justice Department blocked efforts by its prosecutors in Seattle in 2002 to bring criminal charges against Haroon Aswat, according to federal law-enforcement officials who were involved in the case. British authorities suspect Aswat of taking part in the July 7 London bombings, which killed 56 and prompted an intense worldwide manhunt for him. But long before he surfaced as a suspect there, federal prosecutors in Seattle wanted to seek a grand-jury indictment for his involvement in a failed attempt to set up a terrorist-training camp in Bly, Ore., in late 1999. In early 2000, Aswat lived for a couple of months in central Seattle at the Dar-us-Salaam mosque. snip "It was really frustrating," said a former Justice Department official involved in the case. "Guys like that, you just want to sweep them up off the street." snip At the time, however, federal prosecutors chose not to indict Aswat for reasons that are not clear. Asked why Aswat wasn't indicted, a federal official in Seattle replied, "That's a great question." more http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/20023 ... *********************************** Pakistani American Aiding London Probe Man in U.S. Custody Has Ties to Al Qaeda http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20 ... By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 25, 2005; Page A14 It is safe to assume that most people would not react to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in quite the same way as Mohammed Junaid Babar. SNIP Thus began the strange jihadist odyssey of Babar, 30, a naturalized U.S. citizen and Yankees fan who said he gave up a $70,000-a-year job as a computer programmer to join al Qaeda operatives in plotting attacks against U.S. soldiers and targets in Britain. Now in U.S. custody after pleading guilty to terrorism charges last year, Babar has proved invaluable to U.S. and British investigators probing this month's attacks on the London transit system, numerous officials said. He has identified at least one of the suicide bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, through photographs and has provided other details that may be helpful in unraveling the plot, according to law enforcement and intelligence sources. The revelation that Babar is linked to the July 7 London attacks, which killed at least 56 including the four suicide bombers, is only the latest connection to emerge between the grandson of Pakistani immigrants and al Qaeda. In addition to his connection to the London bombers, Babar has admitted in court proceedings to supplying bomb-making materials to a Pakistani cell in the United Kingdom that had plotted to blow up restaurants, pubs and train stations there. (When the cell was broken up in 2004, British authorities discovered more than 1,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the same material used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.) Furthermore, Babar said in federal court in Manhattan during a plea hearing last summer that he spent much of 2003 and early 2004 in the Waziristan province of Pakistan, supplying money and materials -- including night-vision goggles, sleeping bags and other items -- to "a high-ranking al Qaeda official" for use in the fight against U.S. and Northern Alliance forces across the border in Afghanistan. He also admitted to setting up a jihad training camp in the region, a court transcript shows. Babar also is believed to have links to Issa al-Hindi, the operative involved in surveillance of financial buildings in the United States before the Sept. 11 attacks. "This guy's connection to different cells and plots just seems to be expanding," said one U.S. law enforcement official, who declined to be identified because parts of the case are classified. "He is the fish that is getting bigger." Although his arrest and prosecution last year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York went largely unnoticed, U.S. counterterrorism and law enforcement officials say they have long recognized Babar's importance as a link to major al Qaeda players. In an interview last fall, Frances Fragos Townsend, now the White House national security adviser, pointed to the Babar case as an example of a major prosecution. Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey also said in an interview during the same period that Babar's case provided a lesson on the importance of greater surveillance powers for the government, citing evidence that he checked e-mail at a library despite having access in his home. SNIP U.S. counterterrorism officials said Babar first hit their radar screen in late 2001, after the incendiary comments he made to ITN were broadcast. But it was not until April 2004, after Babar had returned to New York and was put under surveillance by the FBI, that he was arrested. Babar has told authorities that he recognized Khan, one of the London bombers, as a person he met in Pakistan and that he accompanied him to a jihad camp in the area, sources said. Although Babar could face as many as 70 years in prison, he is likely to receive a lesser sentence for cooperating with U.S. authorities, and a sentencing date has not been scheduled, officials said. ********************************** Not a word in The Post today about the other guy in Seattle who the US arrested and Ashcroft let go. Haroon Aswat and a confederate ended up as a central figure in the London bombing. ((http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ... The Seattle Time story, updated version here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/20023 ... These revelations show how deeply entwined US intelligence operatives have become in the London cells. It also shows that MI-5 and DHS have a long way to go before they learn how to prevent international terrorist attacks. Obviously, allowing double-agents to run around the world isn't the way to do things. If I were a British MP, I would demand answers of Mr. Blair. If I were Mr. Blair, I might recall the Ambassador from Washington. Mark |
| Posted by: leveymg 2005-07-26 12:07 |
| #1 The first difficult question is: Is this the authentic voice of Islam? And it is a question that no non-Muslim can presume to properly answer. I'll presume: it is. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-26 11:58 |