Article

2005-07-28 Terror Networks & Islam

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-07-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Word.

Posted by .com 2005-07-28 01:56|| 2005-07-28 01:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Yea and a fellow who's book is coming out in September says there are 7 of Osmas Nukes in the US. Their targets, US cities, just as Osama has planed and promsied. We haven't tarried to long and pussyfooted around over long I hope .

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-28 03:00|| 2005-07-28 03:00|| Front Page Top

#3 Help me understand something:

Ibrahim lists just a few of the examples of the carnage inflicted by muslims on muslims, and then says:

The West is now going to war against not only Muslims, but also, sadly, Islam as a religion.

How is this an indictment of the West?

Clearly, it just reveals the fact that islam and the muslim culture, is the culprit. In fact, the West has not, and will not be nearly as harsh on arabs because of its human rights values.

Posted by PlanetDan">PlanetDan 2005-07-28 04:04|| 2005-07-28 04:04|| Front Page Top

#4 I don't think he's indicting the West at all - I think he's issuing a clarion call to Islam. That he adds "sadly" is probably no different than anyone in similar shoes would say - i.e. he's not weaseling.

My take is that he sees exactly what Yamamoto saw after Pearl Harbor when the carriers were missed - "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

I believe he recognizes this is the equivalent moment for Islam. If I've missed it, please explain your take.

Posted by .com 2005-07-28 04:42|| 2005-07-28 04:42|| Front Page Top

#5 I think you'll find the link to the quote interesting - it's likely bogus, lol! But Ibrahim's article seems quite genuine - and uses typically colorful and visual phrasing, so apropos to Arabs - to make his point.

Posted by .com 2005-07-28 04:51|| 2005-07-28 04:51|| Front Page Top

#6 The Empire Strikes Back..........

Posted by Luke Groundwalker 2005-07-28 05:51|| 2005-07-28 05:51|| Front Page Top

#7 I read this as he GETS actions have consequences and for Islam and Arabs they won't like them (which is not the same as saying they are bad).

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-28 06:19|| 2005-07-28 06:19|| Front Page Top

#8 "How is this an indictment of the West?"

It isn't; he's indicting his fellow Muslims. His sentence preceeding the one you quoted says it all: "I fear those naÃ¯ve Muslims who think that they are beating the West have now achieved their worst crime of all."

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2005-07-28 06:43|| 2005-07-28 06:43|| Front Page Top

#9 .com

If my memory is any good it was not the missing of the carriers who worried Yamamoto (1) but knowing that due a decoding snapfu the Americans had been notified of the state of war after the attack. Yamamoto had lived in America and knew that this would make Americans mad. Also he didn't share the opinion of his colleagues of Americans being soft and decadent, he thought they were tough and, if angered, would fight to the death. Pearl Harbor and the diplomatic disaster of delivering the note too late endured Japan would have to deal with an angry America. The thought of it frightened Yamamoto.

(1) As evidenced at Midway, Yamamoto still clinged to the concept that battleships were the important ships and carriers the secondary ones.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-07-28 06:53|| 2005-07-28 06:53|| Front Page Top

#10 .com, JFM

The version I've heard is that BEFORE Pearl Harbor Yamomoto objected to the war with words along the lines of ...."I'll have a free run for 6 months, but then what?"

Having been to the US he understood the size and scope of out industrial might.

Think back to Gene Wilder re Mongo... "Don't shoot him, you'll only make him mad."

Posted by AlanC 2005-07-28 08:33|| 2005-07-28 08:33|| Front Page Top

#11 I can see why this guy doesn't write for the Times anymore.

Posted by raptor 2005-07-28 09:36|| 2005-07-28 09:36|| Front Page Top

#12 I doubt he can even begin to understand and comprehend the shift in attitude on the street level.

Posted by MunkarKat 2005-07-28 09:49|| 2005-07-28 09:49|| Front Page Top

#13 AlanC

In fact both stories are true. Yamamoto promised six months of victories but he feared what would happen once the US economy had redeployed for war because he knew American industrial power. But he also knew the Americans and he didn't share the opinion prevalent in Japanese leading circles that Americans were soft and after the six months of Japanese victories, would throw the towel at the perspective of having to fight in plague infested hellholes like Guadalcanal. That is why he opposed the war.

But when he learnt about the late deliveral of the declaration of war (BTW: the note was contorted and didn't tell clearly it was war, the Japanese wanted to cut in the the time allowed to Americans for alerting their forces) he knew that the Americans would not content with retaking the lost ground and force Japan to give some possessions but that they would not stop until utterly crushing it.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-07-28 10:08|| 2005-07-28 10:08|| Front Page Top

#14 From .com's link, about the assassination of Yammamoto - To cover up the fact that the Allies were reading Japanese code, American newspapers published a story that civlian coast watchers in the Solomons saw Yamamoto boarding a bomber in the area.

How we could've pulled off that feat of planning in such a short period must've stunned the Japenese - if they believed it!

Too bad we are not allowed to assassinate really bad people anymore.

Too bad the newspapers now would scream about the violation of the Geneva Convention, et cetera, and not actually lift a finger to help. War, after all, is morally reprehensible.

Posted by Bobby 2005-07-28 12:39|| 2005-07-28 12:39|| Front Page Top

#15 I agree with .com and phil.My take is,it is not an idictment of the West and the guy gets it.

Posted by raptor 2005-07-28 12:51|| 2005-07-28 12:51|| Front Page Top

#16 Perhaps Mr. Ibrahim did not want a war pitting all of Islam against the west, but Binny sure as hell does.

Binny's plan will succeed to the point of radical islam being the most dominant force in Islamic politics. But thats as far as he'll get with his plan, supposing the west goes to war with Islam, which is still very debatable.

Because we, as the article points out, can destroy anything we want to. Albeit at a high cost, but we've done worse to ourselves than anyone will ever do to us. We could destroy Islam if we please and will no doubt force radical islam into submission in due time. So, bring it on Binny.

However, I think our boys are going to pull this hearts and minds battle off, as we already have in most of Iraq, minus the Sunni leadership, who are all old baathists anyway.

I did like this guys take on Iraq and Palestine though, very insightful.

EP

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-07-28 15:34|| 2005-07-28 15:34|| Front Page Top

09:43 Tholuns Shomogum7813
09:30 Ulomonter Thaviter6771
09:27 Ulomonter Thaviter6771
00:01 Jennie Taliaferro
23:59 trailing wife
23:55 Mike Sylwester
23:53 Mike Sylwester
23:51 trailing wife
23:47 Jennie Taliaferro
23:46 Jennie Taliaferro
23:44 Mike Sylwester
23:42 Frank G
23:34 Mike Sylwester
23:32 Mike Sylwester
23:31 Mike Sylwester
23:21 trailing wife
23:15 Frank G
23:15 bigjim-ky
23:13 Frank G
23:11 Mike Sylwester
23:11 bigjim-ky
23:08 Mike Sylwester
23:07 trailing wife
23:05 Mike Sylwester