French Identity No Longer Open to Debate

French Identity No Longer Open to Debate

More news stories on Islam in Europe/Asia

Susan Sachs, Globe and Mail (Toronto), February 9, 2010

It started with a bang and ended with a committee.

Four months ago, the French government opened a grand collective discussion about national identity. It quickly evolved into a nasty quarrel over whether immigrants, and particularly Muslim immigrants, are French enough.

Yesterday, Prime Minister François Fillon essentially shelved the debate, saying he would ask a committee of “intellectuals” to ruminate on the subject and report back in September.

“The debate was exemplary,” he announced after a closed-door meeting of the full French cabinet. “The question of the identity of France is no longer a taboo question.”

But critics across the political spectrum said the government opened a Pandora’s box in setting up a website for people to weigh in on what it means to be French and organizing more than 350 public hearings across the country.

“It’s a fine subject, but the way it was handled ended up creating a monster and a lot of racist excesses,” said Patrick Lozès, president of the Representative Council of Black Associations.

The government’s website, for example, proved a popular success, with some 55,000 comments posted on it since October. But 15 per cent of the posts had to be removed because they were racist, xenophobic or otherwise inappropriate.

Eric Besson, the Minister of Immigration and National Identity, said he never meant for the debate to focus on immigrants or on French Muslims, another common theme in the sometimes strident public hearings.

But from the start, that subtext was raised in his suggested talking points for the debate, which included the question, “Should we control immigration in order to preserve our national unity?”

The debate took place against the backdrop of an equally divisive discussion over the niqab, the face-covering veil worn by some Muslim women. A parliamentary commission has recommended that women wearing the garment be banned from public transport, hospitals and government buildings. A group of deputies from the governing rightwing party wants to outlaw the wearing of it in all public places.

A TNS Sofres poll published last week suggested that the French are generally worried about the impact of immigration. Asked if there is a French identity, 23 per cent of those surveyed answered no. But the majority or respondents said it exists, needs to be strengthened and is under threat from immigrants from different cultures.

The roots of the national identity debate go back to 2007, when newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy said the French needed to show more respect for their values and national symbols.

With regional elections looming in March, Mr. Fillon revived those themes at the same time as he dispatched the larger question of national identity for further study.

He said the government will ensure that all schools fly the French flag by the start of the next school year and that the 1789 Declaration of Human Rights is posted in every classroom “to cultivate pride in being French.”

The government will also require foreigners to prove their proficiency in French and sign a contract of rights and responsibilities in order to get French citizenship, he said.

Much of what Mr. Fillon is proposing is already in place. Since 2003, anyone seeking a work visa, residence status or naturalization has to speak French. For the past three years, they have also had to complete a course in French culture and values and prove that they have integrated into French society.

“In fact, the government decided to bury the debate on national identity,” said Harlem Désir, a spokesman for the opposition Socialist Party. “These are insignificant measures to make people believe that it actually served a purpose.”

During the national identity debate, some government ministers proposed more-explicit requirements for foreigners, including a pledge that they will not wear or force anyone to wear the full Islamic veil.

Mr. Besson proposed that each French boy and girl be required to sign a “rights and duties charter” at 18 and that the government revoke the visa of any foreigner who breaches what he called French values.

Original article

(Posted on February 9, 2010)


1 — Linus wrote at 5:37 PM on February 9: “Yesterday, Prime Minister François Fillon essentially shelved the debate, saying he would ask a committee of “intellectuals” to ruminate on the subject and report back in September.

“The debate was exemplary,” he announced after a closed-door meeting of the full French cabinet. “The question of the identity of France is no longer a taboo question.””

What obviously contradictory nonsense.

Besides, it’s never “taboo” to have “intellectuals” discuss any dangerous topic as “intellectual” is always a designation awarded solely on the basis of ideological affiliation! These “intellectuals” will simply decide, after a moment’s delibera- err, “rumination” – that the public is ignorant and racist and just can’t see the truth behind the ideals to which they so perfervidly hold, but are utterly incapable of explaining.

The public just can’t see the Emperor’s New Clothes.

Poor racists.
2 — Blaak Obongo wrote at 6:04 PM on February 9: “In fact, the [French] government decided to bury the debate on national identity.”

Unlike the United States, where no such debate is permitted in the first place. It’d be Racist, don’t you know?

The Left’s noisy desire for “Democracy” quickly evaporates when it becomes clear that the democratic majority is not Leftist.
3 — sbuffalonative wrote at 6:28 PM on February 9: “…he would ask a committee of “intellectuals” to ruminate on the subject and report back”

Confirmation of what we all know. The self-proclaimed ‘intellecutuals’ and elites are going to by-pass the common sense and will of the majority and presumably ‘do what’s right’.
4 — Anonymous wrote at 6:35 PM on February 9: “But 15 per cent of the posts had to be removed because they were racist, xenophobic or otherwise inappropriate.”

Yes, we are free and encouraged to discuss ideas and express our views, but ONLY those ideas and views that are sanctioned by the governemnt. Alternative views or ideas will NOT be permitted. This is one of the first signs of a totalitarian government — i.e., Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim Jong-il, Idi Amin, etc.
5 — ghw wrote at 6:55 PM on February 9: “Asked if there is a French identity, 23 per cent of those surveyed answered no.”

A quarter of the population! I’m not at all surprised by that statistic. With each generation, there are ever fewer “French” people left in France. It has become a composite of Europe —- and now the world. France has been a “proposition nation” and a melting pot for at least a couple of centuries ….since the Revolution at least, and even before that, starting with Marie de Medici and Cardinal Mazarin. Well before the USA even existed! I don’t know why this simple fact of history is unmentionable.

In a metropolis like Paris or Marseille, you have everybody from everywhere. The united nations! For generations, Paris has been a magnet for population. I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority there are not native French or of French descent (by which I mean having at least French grandparents).
6 — GoAway wrote at 8:13 PM on February 9: I’ll settle it. What It Means To Be French: White, Catholic, and ethnically and linguistically FRENCH. Class adjourned.
7 — SKIP wrote at 10:19 PM on February 9: They have also had to complete a course in French culture and values and prove that they have integrated into French society.

There is no way a Muslim can adapt to a civilized society, they change said society or try to blow it up..and the futility of trying to or expecting African black Muslims to be civilized is laughable to tears. A religious conflagration is coming to EU.
8 — WR the elder wrote at 11:08 PM on February 9: The liberal elite is always engaging in this sort of censorship. They believe in free speech and free debate so long as you agree with them. They are nasty little totalitarians at the core.

If there’s one thing I’m certain of it’s this: The French elites live well removed from the diversity they impose on everyone else, just as the American elites do here.

Germany’s Very Own Minaret Debate Turns Nasty

More news stories on Islam in Europe/Asia

CGH, Spiegel, February 5, 2010

A small Muslim community in a western German town would like to build a minaret on its mosque. But the plan has triggered passionate opposition from locals, many of whom rely on rhetoric from the extreme right in railing against the “symbol of Islam’s quest for power.”

“Willkommen,” reads the stencilled print on the wall along the riverside boardwalk in the small town of Völklingen. Not content to just welcome its German guests, however, the message is translated into a number of languages. “Bienvenue . . . bienvenidos . . . velkommen,” it reads. And “hosgeldiniz,” a nod to the city’s substantial Turkish population.

Elsewhere in the city—particularly in the quarter known as Wehrden—Muslim immigrants may not feel quite as welcome. A small mosque on the banks of the Saar River there has applied for a permit to build a small minaret on its roof—triggering a wave of at-times vehement protest reminiscent of the fuss surrounding the November 2009 referendum in Switzerland to ban minarets in the country.

“I am against the Islamification of our fatherland!” reads a message, posted by “Tommy” on the Web site of the local paper Saarbrücker Zeitung. “Islam is the greatest threat facing humanity,” he adds.

In a town meeting held on the subject in late January, a number of locals came out against the minaret plan. According to Berlin daily Die Tageszeitung, several expressed fears that Germany was being “infiltrated” by “the Turks.”

The plan foresees a minaret stretching a mere eight meters (26 feet) above the roof. The head of the Turkish-Muslim community planning the minaret, Adnan Atakli, has assured locals that there are no plans to broadcast calls to prayer from the minaret and that he merely sees it as an “ornament.”

Doesn’t Shy Away from Far-Right Rhetoric

And not everyone has come out against the plans. Many have pointed out that such an adornment would only improve the not-terribly-attractive quarter where the mosque is located. Furthermore, almost 10 percent of the Völklingen population is made up of immigrants, many of them Muslims. Some say it only makes sense that they be allowed to build a small minaret.

Still, politesse has hardly characterized the debate in Völklingen. Indeed, the back and forth is reminiscent of the campaign in Cologne in 2008 to block the construction of a mosque there. The campaign was led by a group called Pro-Cologne, a group that doesn’t shy away from far-right rhetoric. Similar debates have taken place in numerous European countries as the right wing seeks to tap into widespread skepticism toward Islam.

The Swiss referendum, which saw 57.5 percent of voters come out against the minaret ban, clearly showed just how anchored anti-Muslim sentiment may be in Europe. Indeed, a group called Pro-NRW (short for the German state North Rhine-Westphalia) now plans to cooperate with right-wing political parties in numerous European countries to organize a European Union-wide minaret referendum.

Islam’s ‘Quest for Power’

The debate in Völklingen is once again showing how quickly right-wing rhetoric can cross over into the mainstream when it comes to debates on Islam in Europe. Local right-wing extremists—two of whom are in the Völklingen city council—have argued that minarets are “symbols of Turkish dominance.” They point to a speech given by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in February 2008 in Cologne. In it, he said that “mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, the domes our helmets and the believers are our soldiers.”

The Völklingen mosque belongs to the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), which has close ties to Turkey. “We are being quietly infiltrated by the Turks!” said one participant at the late January town meeting, according to Die Tageszeitung.

The local news paper, however, has used the exact same rhetoric on its editorial pages. “This minaret should not be built,” the Saarbrücker Zeitung wrote in late January. “It symbolizes Islam’s quest for power and is nothing less than a provocation. In the course of the Muslim conquests, minarets were first used as watch towers and only subsequently as religious symbols. Following the violent seizure of new territories, minarets were built as manifestations of Muslim rule.”

Minaret opponents are now looking into the possibility of holding a referendum on the issue in Völklingen. Yet another one.

Original article

(Posted on February 9, 2010)


1 — Anonymous wrote at 7:07 PM on February 9: Adnan Atakli, has assured locals that there are no plans to broadcast calls to prayer from the minaret and that he merely sees it as an “ornament.”

Then what is the PURPOSE of it? I don’t believe it is for “ornament” only. That’s just a way of slipping a foot in the door. Eventually, given time, nibble by nibble, they will want to broadcast calls to prayer. That’s what a minaret is for.

I can say as one who knows, that this is one of the greatest annoyances in a Moslem country. Yes, you can say that Christian countries have their church bells, but they’re not the same as the call of the muezzin waking the city up at the crack of dawn, and then broadcasting at various intervals throughout the day.

It served a purpose for desert tribes and before people had clocks. It’s need is outmoded today.
2 — John PM wrote at 7:38 PM on February 9: Right Comrade Invader Atakli, that is until maybe 2012 or 2013 when you start demanding “calls to prayer” as your “human” or “religious” rights in the next phase of your “assimilation” into German culture!

Am I wrong?

The poster to the Saarbrücker Zeitung’s website named Tommy is quite correct when he wisely declares: “Islam is the greatest threat facing humanity.”

We have been at war with, and defending ourselves against, being enslaved and brutalized by Islam for centuries in the West. What makes anyone, except for the most infinitely odious of “enlightened intellectuals,” think that anything has changed in this historical dynamic? It hasn’t, and to make matters worse, they of that “religion of peace” are openly stating that it hasn’t for them at all.

Their goals are for conquest and “revenge” upon the Western “whoredom,” that they see as their nearest and most natural enemy.

What is so “unfathomably” hard to grasp about this:

As always, God help us all!!!
3 — Anonymous wrote at 7:57 PM on February 9: Is this the infiltration of ‘old style right wing rhetoric’, or is it simply the young, taking a page from the very playbook of the multiculturalists, and marxists, learned and active and prevelant as they are; is this fighting fire with fire, so to speak?

That one is considered hate and the other enlightenment says more about the Spiegel than it does about these extreme rightists.
4 — Bobby wrote at 8:09 PM on February 9: Germany, one of the great nations of the world, is truly losing it. I have a buddy that does business( antique pianos)in Berlin,Germany,and he likes to go to the classical music concerts there. He once told me, Bob, I couldn’t believe how families would go to these concerts with their elementary school aged kids and the kids would sit quietly and listen. He is just about ready to leave California for good. However,he always says that the ultra liberal mind set there, that he has observed talking to the average German, is probably going to ruin the country.
5 — GoAway wrote at 8:16 PM on February 9: Europe’s Muslims should be allowed to build as many mosques and minarets as there are churches in Saudi Arabia. See how easy that was?
6 — Tim Mc Hugh wrote at 8:37 PM on February 9: “a Mere 8 meters…” Or as the article pointed out, 26 feet. That`s a good ways above the roof line. Ask anyone who changes stadium and parking lot lights for a living.

How Muslims Defeated the United States

How Muslims Defeated the United States

Today, I am posting an extraordinary letter from a soldier currently stationed in Iraq, a sometime penpal of mine to whom I sent my three-part series on the aftermath of the surge to elicit his opinion. Knowing how thoughtful he is, I expected a substantive response. Given his time constraints alone, I did not expect an essay of this scope and I decided, with his permission, to present it here. It is unlike any commentary I have read from Iraq; it is both coolly reasoned and deeply passionate, and certain to challenge and disturb readers across the political spectrum: PC-believing liberals, Iraq-as-success-believing conservatives, Islam-as-a-religion-of-peaceniks of both Left and Right.

So be it.

He writes:

I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been putting in long days … lately and I hadn’t had the time to put the thought and effort into writing this until now.

Your three-part column series wonderfully analyzes Iraq and reaches the correct strategic assessment that no one in power wants to acknowledge.

I have many things that I want to say but I do not wish to waste your time and I therefore put an executive summary at the beginning of this e-mail so you can skip the expanded version if you wish.


You correctly assessed that we have not gained anything positive from our efforts in Iraq and that the nation is not our ally. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I will go as far as saying that the Iraqis are our enemies—enemies better equipped to wage jihad against us than they have ever been. We will regret what we have done. We will regret that we created this officially Islamic nation. And we will regret that we created an officially Islamic Afghanistan. We will regret that we have placed ourselves in the service of Islam, waging jihad worldwide as we advance the Religion of Peace and eliminate Christians in the process. (So much for the accusation that the U.S. is on a “Crusade.”) It is a shame that so many people refuse to recognize how horrible Islam is, and that the U.S. made a fatal mistake when it refused to declare war against Afghanistan and Islam—when it refused victory by binding the greatest military force of all time.


The Full Analysis:

Parts 1 and 2 of “The ‘Surge’ and ‘Success’” correctly identify that we have gained nothing positive for our efforts in Iraq while the Iraqis have betrayed us. I do not trust any Iraqi or Middle Easterner. I do not care if anyone calls me a “racist” or “bigot” anymore. Those words have lost their meaning. Do I think that every single Iraqi or Middle Easterner is bad? No. But I think it is difficult to tell. An Iraqi or Middle Easterner will smile to your face or be your best friend one moment, and cut your head off in the next. It is odd that so many people cannot comprehend this. It is even weirder that those who pride themselves on being “culturally aware” cannot grasp that Middle Eastern culture and thought, and Islamic behavior and thought are completely different than ours (than ours on the Right, at least). Perhaps this ignorance partially explains why the U.S. had no reaction when Maliki declared victory over the U.S. when we moved out of the major Iraqi cities. But even if it is a partial explanation it still is no excuse.

The Iranian War in Iraq is a travesty and has been since it started under Bush. I still cannot believe that a nation can war against us and murder Servicemen, and not pay the price of oblivion for it. Our nation sits back and apologizes, and defends itself constantly from accusations of an “illegal” and “unjust” war yet Iranians, other foreign terrorists, and even Iraqis go about murdering American troops without any consequence whatsoever. We should war back against them. But we won’t.

I remember when people said that we had brought on the September 11 attacks because “we created Bin Laden.” I never understood that. In fact, that we had helped the Afghanis defeat the Soviet Union should have been even more reason for us to kill Bin Laden and destroy Afghanistan. We had saved their lives and they repaid us for it by murdering us on our own soil. Yet our government refused its God-given duty to its people to mete out punishment and justice. History repeats with Iraq. The Iraqis lived under oppression for decades and when we liberated their nation they repaid our unimaginable mercy and sacrifice with betrayal. It is sickening.

Part 3 (“Victory” in Iraq? Really?) perfectly summarized where the U.S. is now in our “war” in Iraq. Once we made Iraq an officially Islamic country I knew that it would become among our worst enemies. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I said years ago that the end result of our efforts will be that Iraq will be a rebuilt nation better prepared than ever to wage jihad against us. You cannot create an officially Islamic nation and expect anything less. Regrettably, our leaders and our nation cannot identify Islam for what it is: evil. And so we continue our suicidal practice. The Iraqi betrayal of the U.S. started sooner than I expected it but I expected it nonetheless. This is outrageous. Yet the situation is even more unjust than this.

Muslims have waged jihad against the West since their insane, pedophiliac founder started their cult; they have waged jihad against the U.S. since our inception. But what is worse about our policy of establishing officially Islamic nations and pouring money, technology, weapons, and training into them is that we have been labeled as “occupiers” being on a “Christian crusade to wipe out Islam.” Think about that. We have been demonized as “occupying Christian crusaders” (if only!) even as we have waged jihad in the service of Islam, helped Muslims spread Islam and wipe out Christians, and died for ungrateful Iraqis even as terrorists from all over the war invaded and occupied Iraq, and slaughtered and oppressed Iraqis. (And don’t even get me started on the fact that we—the United States of America—are truly being invaded and occupied by illegal aliens warring on us!)

I am woefully understating the situation when I say that the U.S. has no clue how to fight wars any longer. We have allowed our enemies to control this war and make it one of media and information—information warfare / information operations . We have chosen not to win by refusing to reject the enemies’ preferred warfare; we have chosen not to wage a kinetic warfare where we could easily defeat our enemies in months if not weeks with our superior technology, tactics, and Servicemen. And through it all we seem not the least bit embarrassed that a “coalition” of dozens of nations cannot beat a primitive bunch of troglodytes. I no longer can express my outrage about this or any of the myriad horrors which plague our once great land. Every day there is something new which is more perverse and inequitable than the last day’s wickedness. I sit here in Iraq and do all I can do to stomach the disastrous excuse that passes for “strategy” in this war—a strategy where our leaders openly say that the lives of our Islamic enemies are worth more than ours; a “strategy” where the Army Chief of Staff openly states that the “death of diversity” would be a larger tragedy than the slaughter of Soldiers (and get away with it with but a whisper of outcry from the American people). I pray that I get out of here alive so I can complete my Army contract and get away from this nonsense and betrayal.

Two final things.

First, I wonder how many people have considered how successful the September 11, 2001 Islamic attacks were. Think about what they accomplished. They thrust Islam to the center of the world; they undoubtedly caused more people to learn about Islam than would have prior to their attacks. And the attacks combined with the near non-response of the U.S. doubtlessly gained them converts. Furthermore, what response the United States did produce resulted in the establishment, enrichment, and training of the officially Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the enrichment and training of countless other Muslim nations around the globe. Islam now stands better suited than ever to wage jihad across the world. The September 11 attacks also resulted in Muslims being portrayed as victims around the world (thanks to their leftist allies) and helped them (again, with an assist from their leftist allies) advance their jihad even as Muslims and leftists further vilified Christianity, America, and Western values. And finally the crowning achievement of the September 11 Islamic attacks: eight years after them the United States places as its leader a person whom can at best be described as an anti-American, racist, Islamic sympathizer (and who has the same name as an infamous Islamic dictator). This is stunning. It is bizarre. It is incomprehensible. Yet it is our nightmarish reality. The Islamic attacks on September 11, 2001 achieved success beyond the wildest dreams of the Religion of Peace cultists.

Finally, I would like you to know that I am willing to comment on other posts and articles that you publish, including some of your other posts that mention the debate that your three-part column on the Surge started. I am willing to comment for two reasons.

The first reason is that everyone on the Right needs to fight back against the Islamic War on the West and stop the jihad. And one of the ways to fight back is to speak out against it. The second reason is that I want to establish for posterity that I am firmly against this evil and every other evil. I will explain why this matters.

Leftists always rewrite history so as to demonize what is Right and so as to cover their real nature. They abhor the truth as much as the vilest of Muslims. And as a way to enable their rewriting of history they use political correctness to silence opponents; to vilify them so that they have no place in society. We have allowed leftists to use political correctness to emasculate us. In fact, political correctness is the leftist weapon of choice in paralyzing the Right and aiding their Islamic allies who also advance an anti-Christian, anti-Foundational America agenda. Political correctness is what prevents us from fighting back against the left, and what prevents us from fully fighting back against the jihad and ending the Islamic threat. Political correctness makes us acquiesce to the left so as to be “moderate” and “bipartisan.” Our capitulation to the left will doom us physically by allowing the Muslims and left to eliminate the last vestiges of the West and it will doom us historically as our enslaved descendants will look back and ask how we could have allowed the twin insanities of Islam and the left to control and destroy us when we easily could have defeated them both. Our descendants will condemn us for remaining idle in the face of evil . . . and the leftists of the future will use our submission and our descendants’ condemnation to manipulate history and blame us as the originators of the horrific agenda that they instituted. The future left will use our sinful surrender to pave the way for them to control and destroy civilization once more (all in the name of “progressivism” of course).

I do not want leftists to be able to do this. I do not want them to easily rewrite history in the future. I want to be a loud voice (wherever I may be) that opposes everything Islam and the left want. I want there to be no doubt that I, a Right-wing Christian, utterly reject them and their core beliefs. I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that, “It was the Christian Right who enabled and supported the worldwide jihad (not to mention the global warming hoax, the sexual perverts, and the freedom hating communists)! It was the Christian Right who wanted them to take over and destroy the world!” I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that atheists, humanists, and secularists (like Bruce Bawer, Christopher Hitchens, Tammy Bruce, and a few others) tried to oppose the Islamic War on the West but “could not convince the mentally inferior but numerically superior Right-wing Christians to join them!” I want to counteract the in-name-only Christians and conservatives who have bought into the “Religion of Peace” and leftist nonsense, and who will do untold additional amounts of damage to civilization and our good name with their cravenness and rejection of Truth. And that is why I am willing to comment on more of your posts.

I know I am in the minority with my beliefs but I do not care. I want to be like the 300—not just the ones who fought at Thermopylae—but the 300 who fought with Gideon against the Midianites. I want to stand for the Truth.

Keep up the good work.


A US soldier in Iraq

The Pentagon’s Willful Blindness

The Pentagon’s Willful Blindness

By Andrew Bostom

The Pentagon’s bowdlerized “analysis” of the jihad-inspired mass murder committed by a pious Muslim officer at Fort Hood is a disgrace. The willful blindness toward the essence of jihad will harm our troops.
I recently attended a briefing (an early iteration of the discussion contents are available here, entitled “To Our Great Detriment“) which elucidated in irrefragable detail the Pentagon’s willful capitulation to the dictates of Islamically-correct interpretations of jihad by various Muslim Brotherhood “consultants” to the Department of Defense (DOD). While the DOD adopts the absurdly apologetic interpretation of jihad at its most “aggressive” as a bloodless missionary “striving” to promote the Religion of Peace — negating the living legacy of jihad as a genocidal war doctrine, in practice as well as in theory — the Pentagon’s Muslim Brotherhood advisers, true to the authentic doctrines of jihad as an endless war of propaganda and deceit, continue to espouse jihad war to their Muslim constituencies.
The result of this stunningly corrosive process has been the willful subversion of U.S. DOD policy to the ultimate goals of both cultural and violent jihad: Islamization. More immediately, the warped, criminally negligent “rules of engagement” this DOD subversion has engendered are imposed upon our troops actually battling armed jihadism. This puts their lives in danger unnecessarily and for precisely the wrong “cause” — alternative forms of Islamization, such as supporting Sharia-compliant regimes irrevocably hostile to Western ideals and goals in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The dangerous absurdity of DOD subversion — and its cruel, destructive impact on our troops — is self-evident in this report and accompanying commentary by Diana West:
This wasn’t supposed to happen there. According to a ‘counterinsurgency’ plan (COIN), anti-US, anti-infidel violence just wasn’t supposed to erupt in Garmsir, Afghanistan, of all places. But it did. And at least eight Afghans died in this Helmand Province district in rioting this week inspired by rumors that U.S. troops had roughed up a Koran.  Somewhere between ‘one thousand’ (UPI) and ‘several thousand’ (The New York Times) Afghans converged on the central bazaar in response to these rumors. ‘The Taliban were provoking the people,’ an Afghan police official told the Times. ‘The Taliban were telling the people, ‘This is jihad; you should sacrifice yourselves.’
Jihad? What’s jihad? Among see-no-Islam Western policymakers, Islamic war doctrine is a cipher, a taboo, so policy is made in ignorance. But thousands of uneducated Afghans knew exactly what the Taliban meant. And what’s more, they acted on it.  It was ‘like watching the movie Blackhawk Down,’ a Marine master sergeant told UPI, except ‘I was in it. My gunner kept yelling he had definite targets, people shooting at us but he couldn’t fire back because there were unarmed people around them.’
The contemporary willful ignorance — and subversion — of our DOD contrasts starkly with the studious and intellectually honest approach to jihad taken by C. Snouck Hurgronje. A professor and Dutch colonial official, Snouck Hurgronje was also a pioneering and prolific Western scholar of Islam.
He visited Arabia (1884-85), including a stop at Mecca, while serving as a lecturer at the University of Leiden (1880-89). Hurgronje’s two-volume classic work Mekka (188889) describes the history of the city and expounds upon Islam’s origins and the traditions and rituals of the earliest Islamic communities. Translated into English as Mekka in the Latter Part of the 19th Century (1931), the second volume includes many details of daily life in an Islamic culture and also discusses the Indonesian Muslim colony at Mecca.
From 1890 to 1906, Snouck Hurgronje was professor of Arabic at Batavia, Java. He also served as an adviser to the Dutch Colonial Government for Arabian Affairs, and in 1891 he was sent for a year to Sumatra to study the Acheh uprising — the subject of his two-volume De Atjèhers (1893-94; published in English translation in 1906 as The Achehnese), his ethnographic account of the people of northern Sumatra and a standard reference work.
Snouck Hurgronje remained a colonial adviser until 1933, but he returned in 1906 to the Netherlands, where he was professor of Arabic and Islamic institutions at the University of Leiden until his death in 1936. An explorer, scholar, politician, and jurist, Hurgronje wrote extensively on a range of Islamic topics and also served as a visiting professor in Egypt (1911) and the United States (1914).
Although deeply respectful of Islamic religious life, as an authoritative scholar of Islamic doctrine and history and a Dutch colonial official, Hurgronje vigorously opposed Islamic jihadism. He stated plainly that all teaching with regard to the orthodox, mainstream Islamic institution of jihad war and the establishment of a caliphate should be prohibited in Muslim schools. But perhaps most importantly, Hurgronje’s “prescription” was based on a meticulously researched, clear-eyed, and unfettered understanding of Islamic doctrine, history, and culture.
The travesty of today’s subverted DOD policies toward jihad — embraced and embodied by General Stanley McChrystal — are highlighted by the comparing of McChrystal’s and Hurgronje’s words.
Sounding eerily like an erstwhile “Commander of the Faithful,” McChrystal’s uninformed, jihad-abetting dawah maintains that “flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran” includes, for example, “The Taliban tell them [Afghan Muslims] the Koran says they have to fight the Crusaders and they [Afghan Muslims] believe them.”
Contrast McChrystal’s bizarre, distressingly apologetic notions with Hurgronje’s insights gleaned from decades of studying Islam, including years of fieldwork in Indonesia researching and writing his seminal, The Acehnese, an analysis of a jihad-inspired Muslim “insurgency.” Hurgronje made these general observations regarding the doctrine of jihad war from his Mohammedanism (New York, 1916, p. 59):
…yet another duty was most emphatically impressed on the Faithful; jihad, i.e., readiness to sacrifice life and possessions for the defense of Islam, understood, since the conquest of Mecca in 630, as the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state, first over the whole of Arabia, and soon after Muhammad’s death over the whole world, so far as Allah granted His hosts for the victory.
In The Acehnese, Hurgronje concluded,
…most Muslims are absolutely ignorant of the details of the doctrine of jihad.  But so long as not one single Muslim teacher of consideration dreams of regarding these laws of the middle ages as abrogated, while a great proportion of the people exhibit the strongest inclination to restore the conditions which prevailed some centuries ago, so long does it remain impossible, however anxious we may be to do so, to omit the jihad from our calculations when forming a judgment on the relation of Islam to other religions.
…rules of Mohammedan [Islamic] law which control the relations of the ‘faithful’ to the ‘unbelievers’ can only be characterized as humane…if we start on the supposition… that kafirs [non-Muslims infidels] are the inferiors of Muslims in this world. That law declares it to be permissible in some cases, in others commendable and even obligatory, to slay infidels, or to kidnap or enslave them. Many ways are left open to the Muslim of cheating individual kafirs or an infidel government without sinning against God. Under the Mohammedan law religious liberty is intolerable as involving the coexistence of truth with falsehood, and of the service of the true God with paganism.
Our military leadership — epitomized by gullible, triumphantly ignorant men such as McChrystal — must abandon its self-destructive, Muslim Brotherhood-nurtured “understanding” of Islam and rediscover the wisdom and experiences of honest Western scholars such as C. Snouck Hurgronje.

Page Printed from:

Report: Al-Qaeda aims to hit U.S. with WMDs

Report: Al-Qaeda aims to hit U.S. with WMDs

Huge attack is top strategic goal, not ‘empty rhetoric,’ ex-CIA official says

By Joby Warrick

updated 11:31 p.m. PT, Mon., Jan. 25, 2010//

When al-Qaeda’s No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called off a planned chemical attack on New York’s subway system in 2003, he offered a chilling explanation: The plot to unleash poison gas on New Yorkers was being dropped for “something better,” Zawahiri said in a message intercepted by U.S. eavesdroppers.

The meaning of Zawahiri’s cryptic threat remains unclear more than six years later, but a new report warns that al-Qaeda has not abandoned its goal of attacking the United States with a chemical, biological or even nuclear weapon.

The report, by a former senior CIA official who led the agency’s hunt for weapons of mass destruction, portrays al-Qaeda’s leaders as determined and patient, willing to wait for years to acquire the kind of weapons that could inflict widespread casualties.

The former official, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, draws on his knowledge of classified case files to argue that al-Qaeda has been far more sophisticated in its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction than is commonly believed, pursuing parallel paths to acquiring weapons and forging alliances with groups that can offer resources and expertise.

“If Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants had been interested in . . . small-scale attacks, there is little doubt they could have done so now,” Mowatt-Larssen writes in a report released Monday by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Deadly strains of anthrax
The report comes as a panel on weapons of mass destruction appointed by Congress prepares to release a new assessment of the federal government’s preparedness for such an attack. The review by the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism is particularly critical of the Obama administration’s actions so far in hardening the country’s defenses against bioterrorism, according to two former government officials who have seen drafts of the report.

The commission’s initial report in December 2008 warned that a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction was likely by 2013.

Mowatt-Larssen, a 23-year CIA veteran, led the agency’s internal task force on al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and later was named director of intelligence and counterintelligence for the Energy Department. His report warns that bin Laden’s threat to attack the West with weapons of mass destruction is not “empty rhetoric” but a top strategic goal for an organization that seeks the economic ruin of the United States and its allies to hasten the overthrow of pro-Western governments in the Islamic world.

He cites patterns in al-Qaeda’s 15-year pursuit of weapons of mass destruction that reflect a deliberateness and sophistication in assembling the needed expertise and equipment. He describes how Zawahiri hired two scientists — a Pakistani microbiologist sympathetic to al-Qaeda and a Malaysian army captain trained in the United States — to work separately on efforts to build a biological weapons lab and acquire deadly strains of anthrax bacteria. Al-Qaeda achieved both goals before September 2001 but apparently had not successfully weaponized the anthrax spores when the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan forced the scientists to flee, Mowatt-Larssen said.

“This was far from run-of-the-mill terrorism,” he said in an interview. “The program was highly compartmentalized, at the highest level of the organization. It was methodical, and it was professional.”

‘Not just trying to scare people’
Mowatt-Larssen said he has seen no evidence linking al-Qaeda’s program with the anthrax attacks on U.S. politicians and news outlets in 2001. Zawahiri’s plan was aimed at mass casualties and “not just trying to scare people with a few letters,” he said.

Evidence from al-Qaeda documents and interrogations suggests that terrorists leaders had settled on anthrax as the weapon of choice and believed that the tools for a major biological attack were within their grasp, the former CIA official said. Al-Qaeda remained interested in nuclear weapons as well but understood that the odds of success were much longer.

“They realized they needed a lucky break,” Mowatt-Larssen said. “That meant buying or stealing fissile material or acquiring a stolen bomb.”

Bush administration officials feared that bin Laden was close to obtaining nuclear weapons in 2003 after U.S. spies picked up a cryptic message by a Saudi affiliate of al-Qaeda referring to plans to obtain three stolen Russian nuclear devices. The intercepts prompted the U.S. and Saudi governments to go on alert and later led to an aggressive Saudi crackdown that resulted in the arrest or killing of dozens of suspected al-Qaeda associates.

After that, terrorists’ chatter about a possible nuclear acquisition halted abruptly, but U.S. officials were never certain whether the plot was dismantled or simply pushed deeper underground.

“The crackdown was so successful,” Mowatt-Larssen said, “that intelligence about the program basically dried up.”

Resisting Sharia in the UK by Baron Bodissey

Resisting Sharia in the UK

by Baron Bodissey

The Ummah Jack
Those who oppose the Islamization of Britain consistently find themselves at odds with the stringent politically correct multicultural ideology which now reigns in the UK. Muslim immigrants are free to insult and intimidate “persons of English background” with impunity, but wearing a cross or owning a golliwog can be a punishable offense — if you happen to be white, and have English as your native language.

The English Defence League (EDL) is a grassroots movement which has arisen to resist Sharia in Britain. It predictably finds itself vilified by the Left, excoriated by the press, and branded as “racist” and “fascist” by anyone who has a stake in the existing system — which means civil servants, academics, BBC producers, and politicians of both the Tory and the Labour persuasions. Whenever the EDL organizes a demonstration, it can expect to be physically attacked by “anti-fascist” counter-demonstrators, with only desultory protection offered by the police.

Needless to say, the MSM refuses to treat the EDL objectively, but the following report from France 24 is fairer than most:

Britain’s escalating extremism

A new organisation is taking on radical Muslims in the United Kingdom. The English Defence League’s movement is slowly gaining ground across the country, as its members protest against those who want to impose Sharia law across Britain.

The Queen of England, a Muslim convert? Buckingham Palace, a mosque?

That’s what Islamist extremists in Britain, such as Anjem Choudary, have been calling for. They want Sharia law imposed across the country, with every man, woman and child conforming to the strict Islamic code when in the public arena.

But not if the English Defence League can help it.

Luton is a small, multicultural town about an hours drive north of London. In March 2009, the Second Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment paraded here to mark the end of their tour in Iraq. Their return home was met with pride — and protests.

A group of Muslim protestors had gathered, some bearing placards declaring the soldiers “Baby killers” for having gone to Iraq. This highly-charged event gave birth to an organisation called the United People of Luton, soon to become the English Defence League.

With members and divisions now spread across the UK, the EDL calls for all Islamist extremists to be banned and hold protests all over the country to raise their profile.

– – – – – – – –

Many of these demonstrations have turned violent. Little wonder, given the EDL’s choice of clothing: makeshift “burkhas”, designed to both protect their own identities and to provoke the Muslim community.

The group they are most vehemently opposed to is ‘Islam 4 UK’, led by Anjem Choudary. Choudary is a self-proclaimed judge in some of the UK’s 85 Sharia courts and teaches up and down the country with the London School of Sharia.

The Islam 4 UK website reveals pictures of how his followers see Britain in future: Islamic flags fly from London’s best known monuments, while Buckingham Palace is redesigned with a minaret.

Choudary and his supporters also hold protests, chanting slogans such as ‘Freedom Go to Hell’ and ‘Democracy Hypocrisy’.

But such is the level of tolerance in the UK that both sides will be allowed to have their say — as long as they stay on the right side of the law.

And staying on the right side of the law is the all-important rule that has allowed Islam 4 UK, as well as the EDL, to campaign as hard as they have. Freedom of speech is a principle that the British public are reluctant to give up, even if the consequences are extremist propaganda and violence. That is what allows Choudary to say in our video that he is aligned with al-Qaida, and what allows the EDL to chant ‘Islam Out’ in their protests.

Choudary in particular knows just how far he can go while still remaining within the confines of the law. At the end of our interview, he asked us how soon we would be forwarding the tape to the police, although he wasn’t worried; he hadn’t “said anything too illegal anyway”.

The EDL is opposed to his beliefs and to the fact that he is impressing them on young Muslims all over the country. They are incensed that he can convert an 11 year old boy to Islam on a busy shopping street and go unchallenged. They abhor the fact that he refuses to condemn the 7/7 London bombers and that Sharia courts can exist alongside British courtrooms.

While they remain a relatively minority group, their message is resonating with some people across the UK and it remains to be seen how large the EDL movement can grow.

See the original article for the accompanying video.

Hat tip: Gaia.
Read further…

‘Afghan Insurgency Can Sustain Itself Indefinitely’: Top U.S. Intel Officer

‘Afghan Insurgency Can Sustain Itself Indefinitely’: Top U.S. Intel Officer


The Taliban not only has the “momentum” after the most successful year in its campaign against the United States and the Kabul government. “The Afghan insurgency can sustain itself indefinitely,” according to a briefing from Major General Michael Flynn, the top U.S. intelligence officer in the country. “The Taliban retains [the] required partnerships to sustain support, fuel legitimacy and bolster capacity.”

And if that isn’t enough, Flynn also warns that “time is running out” for the American-led International Security Assistance Force. “Regional instability is rapidly increasing and getting worse,” the report says.

Since General Stanley McChrystal took over as top commander in Afghanistan, there have been a series of dark appraisals about the state of the war. In August, McChrystal warned of an “urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate.” A report recently obtained by NBC News said Afghanistan’s security forces won’t be ready to fight the Taliban for years — if ever. Earlier this week, Flynn issued a white paper complaining that “eight years into the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. intelligence community is only marginally relevant to the overall strategy.”

But Flynn’s December 23rd presentation on the “State of the Insurgency : Trends, Intentions and Objectives” may be the gloomiest public assessment of the war yet. The “loosely organized” Taliban is “growing more cohesive” and “increasingly effective.” The insurgents now have their own “governors” installed in 33 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. And the “strength and ability of [that] shadow governance increasing,” according to the presentation. The Taliban’s “organizational capabilities and operational reach are qualitatively and geographically expanding.”

Improvised bomb “events” have nearly tripled since 2007 — 7228 this year, compared to 2718 two years ago. The bombs have grown bigger — the majority are now 25 pounds or more. “80 to 90 percent” of them are made with homemade fertilizer, rather than military ordnance. That makes it much harder to track and block the distribution of the bomb-making material. Add to that steady supply of cash, thanks to the drug trade and the corrupt Kabul government, and a glut of weapons and ammunition,” and it becomes clear why, in Flynn’s words, “the insurgency is confident…  looking toward post-ISAF Afghanistan.”

The presentation also cast doubt on some of the war’s stated central aims. The Obama administration has repeatedly said that additional troops are necessary to prevent a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan — which would then allow Al Qaeda the re-establigh its safe haven there. According to interviews with detainees, however, the insurgents “view Al Qaeda as a handicap – a view that is increasingly prevalent.” The Taliban feel they have to “manage [the] relationship with AQ to avoid alienating Afghan population, but encourage support from [the] global jihad network.”

Flynn’s presentation also, indirectly, warns that one of the central U.S. tactics in Pakistan — drone strikes against suspected militants — could backfire. “violations of Pakistan sovereignty may contribute to radicalizing the population and diminishes credibility of the GoP [Government of Pakistan].” Such violations “demonstrat[e] an inability of the government; perception they cannot protect their own; exacerbates anti-western sentiment.”

Within military circles, there’s a sense that Flynn may be underplaying recent American successes in Helmand province and elsewhere. And Flynn does note that there’s still hope for the American effort in the region. “We have a key advantage – [the] Taliban is not a popular movement (yet),” the report says. What’s more, there are “persistent fissures among insurgent leadership at local levels” and an “over-reliance on external support.”

Exploiting those fissures — and beating the Taliban — will “requir[e] operating / thinking in a fundamentally new way.”