Friday, July 15, 2005

"May God curse the mujahedeen and their leader!"

No, no, ma'am, they are not terrorists. Those brave souls are insurgents, patriots, freedom fighters

In related news (turban tips to Jonathan Baum, Mike H, Franz Hoffmann, Tom Pechinski, RV, and Joe Wierzbicki), read how Melanie Phillips monitors the the evolution of BBC descriptions from London's "terrorists" to expressions such as "bombers" and "misguided criminals". The logical conclusion, as Michelle Malkin tells us, is that in the future, what we will have is the following:

"Burglars" will be "takers." "Child molesters" will be "ticklers." "Rapists" will be "unplanned lovers." … In London, "terrorists" are "bombers." In the U.S., citizen watchdogs are "vigilantes." The Ministry of Truth would be pleased.
Meanwhile, Jonathan notes that with the "sort of trainee journalist they're nurturing at the Guardian" — unabashedly pro-terror — the "future of Islamicist cheerleading is assured." Tom points to The Daily Ablution, which adds that the Guardian article unaccountably omits the fact (presumably for reasons of space) that Dilpazier Aslam is on record as supporting a world-dominant Islamic state, notably in his writings for London based site khilafah.com.

In addition, it would seem that the leader who had nothing to do with al-Qaeda (and aren't you silly — snort — to believe otherwise) trained only 4,000 terrorists in the six months prior to the 2003 war. Claudia Rosett adds:

If anything, Mr. Bush in recent times has not stressed Saddam's ties to al Qaeda nearly enough. More than ever, as we now discuss the bombings in London, or, to name a few others, Madrid, Casablanca, Bali, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, or the many bombings in Israel--as well as the attacks on the World Trade Center in both 1993 and 2001--it is important to understand that terrorist connections can be real, and lethal, and portend yet more murder, even when they are shadowy, shifting and complex. And it is vital to send the message to regimes in such places as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran that in matters of terrorist ties, the Free World is not interested in epistemological debates over what constitutes a connection. We are not engaged in a court case, or a classroom debate. We are fighting a war.…

The difficulty lies in piecing together the picture, which is indeed murky (that being part of the aim in covert dealings between tyrants and terrorist groups)--but rich enough in depth and documented detail so that the basic shape is clear. By the time Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn are done tabulating the cross-connections, meetings, Iraqi Intelligence memos unearthed after the fall of Saddam, and information obtained from detained terrorist suspects, you have to believe there was significant collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. Or you have to inhabit a universe in which there will never be a demonstrable connection between any of the terrorist attacks the world has suffered over the past dozen years, or any tyrant and any aspiring terrorist. In that fantasyland, all such phenomena are independent events.

Finally, Tom notes that Steven den Beste is getting his fill with the "of course" crowd (similar to those whom Michelle Malkin terms the grievance industry), as are Cal Thomas and Mark Steyn:
When events such as last Thursday's occur, two things happen, usually within hours if not minutes: first, spokespersons for Islamic lobby groups issue warnings about an imminent backlash against Muslims. …

In most circumstances it would be regarded as appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual "hate crime" by scaremongering about a non-existent one. But it seems the real tragedy of every act of "intolerance" by Islamist bigots is that it might hypothetically provoke even more intolerance from us irredeemable white imperialist racists. My colleague Peter Simple must surely marvel at how the identity-group grievance industry has effortlessly diversified into pre-emptively complaining about acts of prejudice that have not yet occurred.

Among those of us who aren't Muslim, meanwhile, there's a stampede to be first to the microphone to say that "of course" we all know that "the vast majority of Muslims" are not terrorists but law-abiding peace-loving people who share our revulsion at these appalling events, etc.

Mr Blair won that contest on Thursday… Terrorism ends when the broader culture refuses to tolerate it. There would be few if any suicide bombers in the Middle East if "martyrdom" were not glorified by imams and politicians, if pictures of local "martyrs" were not proudly displayed in West Bank grocery stores, if Muslim banks did not offer special "martyrdom" accounts to the relicts thereof, if schools did not run essay competitions on "Why I want to grow up to be a martyr".

…We can take steps to prevent Islamic terrorists killing us, most of the time. But Islamic terrorists will only stop trying to kill us when their culture reviles them rather than celebrates them.

…Shame on us for championing Islamic thought-police over Western liberty.

To this, Iran's Amir Taheri adds that
you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it is his divine duty to kill you.
Let's end this post with some positive — excellent, really — news (also from Afghanistan)…

'O' Allah, make America stronger!