Islamic "Knights in Support of the Invasion" Group on Facebook Shut Down: Censorship, or Common Sense?

In a recent post I said that I'm against censorship.

So, why am I glad that Facebook shut down a group of Muslims, Fursan Ghazawat Alnusra?

The New York Times and the BBC don't encourage their readers to kill people that their respective editorial boards don't approve of.

Fursan Ghazawat Alnusra, or "Knights in Support of the Invasion" does - either that, or they've been working very hard to give the wrong impression.

Some samples of the Facebook group's statements (translated, I'm pretty sure):

• Purpose of the group:
  • "to support Jihad and Mujihadeen"
  • "to invade this Web site"
  • To ask "Allah to grant us Jihad and martyrdom"
• "Today we invade your sites, tomorrow your lands and homes, o you cross worshippers[!]."

And, this beaut:

• "Maybe the day will come when one of the martyrs is asked [by Allah] who urged you to Jihad, so he answers saying: a message came to me from Facebook asking me to support the Mujihadeen. The message impacted me therefore I went to Jihad to destroy the places of the cross worshippers[!]."

(From FOXNews)

Photos of group members included Al Qaeda leaders and prominent Saudi clerics.

An American president has said that "Islam is a peaceful religion." A number of people who say they follow Islam have told me essentially the same thing. I have no reason to doubt the word of any of them. I've also been told that "jihad" isn't violent: an idea that might be awkward to explain to the family of an "Egyptian "traitor" whose beheading was shown by Fursan Ghazawat Alnusra. I suppose killing him was okay, by some Muslim standards: somebody felt that he had helped Americans in Iraq.

So, Islam is a peaceful religion, and jihad isn't violent. Those ideas are easy enough to understand.

On the other hand, as a "cross worshiper," I'm a bit unsettled at how many members of this "peaceful religion" have expressed an interesting in waging jihad and invading the homes of Christians.

Related posts:

• "The New York Times Banned in China"
  (December 20, 2008)
• "Saudi Cleric Wants Women to Use One Eye - I'm Not Making This Up"
  (October 4, 2008)
• "United Nations Treats Islam More Equally Than Other Religions"
  (October 3, 2008)
• "Saudi Arabia's National Day, Islam, and Tribalism: This is Big"
  (September 27, 2008)
• "Chief Saudi Judge: Death to Network Owners!"
  (September 19, 2008)
• "Honor Killing is Against Islam, Islamic Party Members Say"
  (September 7, 2008)
• "Muslims, Terrorism, Islam, PBS, and 'Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics' "
  (October 20, 2007)

Related discussion thread:

• "Help! Insight on Muslim/Islamic Beliefs and Culture Lost"
  BlogCatalog discussion thread, started (December 3, 2008)

In the news:

• "Jihadist Group Trying to 'Invade' Facebook Gets Shut Down"
  FOXNews (December 19, 2008)

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

---

Updated (sort of):

• "Why I Call "Knights in Support of the Invasion" Islamic"
  
December 20, 2008)

Interrogation, Waterboarding, Rights, and Reality Checks

I harangued earlier today about how The New York Times was forced to correct a news story's alternatively accurate subheadline.

America is a nation of laws, and individual rights are important. I am glad to live in a country where, for the most part, the rules are laws forged in a public forum, not whims of the powerful.

End-justifies-the-means arguments make me uncomfortable.

That said, I'm very concerned that many people in news, media, and politics, seem to have lost track of what happened in the autumn of 2001.

After 9/11, New York City was missing several buildings, and about 3,000 people. The Pentagon lost office space and people, and an airliner full of people didn't do too well that day, either.

Those who conceived and planned the 9/11 attack are, for the most part, still around. And they still hate the guts of Americans, and anyone else they regard as insufficiently Islamic.

The people who keep Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar organizations running are dedicated to making the world safe for their sort of Islam. That sounds noble, until you realize that their version if Islam includes practices like honor killings, and executing teenagers who wear trousers.

Their version of Islam will not be safe from the infidel until America, western ideals of freedom and tolerance, and a teddy bear named Mohammed are wiped from the face of the earth.

When interrogated, I doubt that they'll cooperate because they think the interrogator plays chess with them, or is a fine fellow.

Making their life unpleasant, with the prospect of less unpleasantness if they provide useful information, seems a reasonable approach.

I don't believe that people should be treated inappropriately. But westerners, and non-westerners who like to wear trousers, play soccer, or do other 'un-Islamic' things, are in deadly peril.

After the fuss about Guantanamo prisoners being abused by being forced to sit on grass, and being given food that wasn't to their liking, it's a little hard to take claims of abuse and torture seriously. Particularly when the abusees are fanatics who may have information that could save innocent lives.

Islam, Christianity, Culture, and Kooks

"The Islamic world" is a handy label for that swath of territory and people from Turkey to Indonesia.

As the followers of Mohammed preached and hacked their way across Asia and Africa, they set up quite a wide variety of "Islamic" cultures. I'm aware that I'm over-simplifying here: This post is long as it is, without going into detail on what's happened in the last fourteen centuries, since Mohammed's conquest of Mecca in 630.

(The founder of Islam has my respect, if for nothing else than for raising an army, marching on a city, conquering that city with minimal bloodshed, and then refraining from slaughtering the inhabitants. Such a high level of humanitarianism has been rare in human history.)

(And, about the spelling of the Prophet's name. There's a variety of ways to take his name from the Arabic alphabet and drop it into the Latin alphabet as used in English. I'm going to use Mohammed, since that's what the standard set in the Associated Press style book I use. Exceptions will be situations where I'm quoting from a source, or where I make a mistake.)

Islamic Unity??

Since Islam is a sort of roll-your-own religion, with no central authority to define what's so and what's not, there are many varieties of Islam. I'm going to take a glance at three "Islamic" countries, and "Christian" America, and try to make some sense of what's out there.

Indonesia is just over 86% Muslim, compared to

• 70% Sunni Muslim for Sudan
  (with 5% Christian - mostly in south and Khartoum -
  and 25% indigenous beliefs)
• 100% Muslim for Saudi Arabia

For comparison, America is about 78% Christian, if you include Mormons:

• 52% Protestant
• 24% Roman Catholic
• 2% Mormon
• 1% Jewish
• 1% Muslim
• 10% Other
• 10% None

Indonesia has more Muslims than any other country, in terms of raw numbers, and is more "Muslim" than America is "Christian."

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia owns and controls Mecca, and is virtually all Muslim.

And, in addition to being about as far away from each other geographically as any other two Islamic countries are, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are very far away from each other in terms of their on-the-street, practical, Islamic beliefs.

Islam: Saudi Style

She's known as the "Girl from Qatif." She's a 19-year-old who was raped by about a half-dozen men, and (so far) sentenced to 200 lashes and prison time. The Saudi Justice Ministry's latest story is that she's guilty of adultery. And that's why she'll be flogged.

It makes sense, since what passes for justice in Saudi Arabia is run by a collection of Islamic courts and judges appointed by the king. The royal opinion has access to the opinion of Saudi Arabia's Supreme Judicial Council. The whole mess uses Sharia Law as the foundation for their decisions.

A little oddity in this case: The Saudi Justice Ministry's current story is that the "Girl from Qatif" was with a high school friend, recovering a photo that showed the two of them together. "Then they were spotted by the other defendants as the woman was in an indecent condition as she had tossed away her clothes, then the assault occurred on her and the man," is how the Houston Chronicle reported the latest Saudi story.

That sentence of prison and lashes, that the 19-year-old got after an appeal? It was legal, according to the Saudi ministry, and followed the "the book of God and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad."

Speaking of Mohammed, here's an example of

Islam: Sudan Style

A British school teacher has been sentenced to 40 lashes. She's guilty of a serious crime. She allowed her class of 7-year-olds to name a teddy bear "Muhammad." The vote was 20 for "Muhammad," 3 for other names.

British Embassy in Khartoum said that it still doesn't know whether the teacher has been charged. Formally, that is. "We are following it up with the authorities and trying to meet her in person," said the embassy.

I'm impressed at how laid back Sudanese authorities are, about getting around to formal charges. Not favorably impressed, but I am impressed.

The teacher was following a British National Curriculum course for teaching about animals and their habitats. The animal this year was the bear.

After naming the teddy bear, each student could have the bear for a weekend. They were supposed to record what they did with the bear. Then each account was put in a book, with "My name is Muhammad" on the cover.

This apparently is an insult to the prophet of Islam. And, more to the point, regarded as an insult by the prophet's lash-happy followers in Sudan.

Sudanese police now want to question the 7-year-old girl who brought in the teddy bear.

Posts on "British Teacher Home from Sudan: Gillian Gibbons, Muslim Clerics, and a Teddy Bear named Mohammed"

Islam, Indonesian Style

Since the Indonesian judicial system isn't based on Sharia Law, it wouldn't be entirely fair to use Indonesian court decisions as an example of Islam in action.

Christians have been executed in Indonesia: For example, the three Christians who were convicted of leading a militia that killed at least 70 Muslims during 1999-2002. After that, Indonesia sentenced a dozen Christian men to terms of up to 14 years: Because they beat two Muslims to death, and beheaded them. The nominal Christians were exacting vengeance for the earlier death sentences.

Christianity, American Style

America is less "Christian" than any of these three Islamic nations is "Muslim." And, America's judicial system, like Indonesia's, isn't based (directly) on a set of religious laws.

For both countries, I'm sure that the religious faiths of those who drew up the laws had something to do with what the laws dictate. I think, though, that America can take credit for putting more distance between traditional religious beliefs and actual judicial practice.

---

Religious Values: or Cultural Values?

Islam isn't the only religion where decisions about the faith are made on a regional or local level. Protestant Christianity is very democratic in the way that its lack of a central authority demands that groups decide for themselves what they believe.

In the case of large denominations, like the Lutheran or Baptist churches, we don't often see beliefs preached that stray very far from the dominant culture.

At the other end of the scale, we've got outfits like the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. (Not the Westboro Baptist Church of Westboro, Ontario, which has nothing in common with the Kansas outfit, apart from the name.) I discussed this outfit's notions about the American military being part of a homosexual plot in "Tolerance Only Goes So Far" and "Does Free Speech Include Disrupting Funerals?."

Then, there's the Ku Klux Klan, or KKK. They're not a religious group, but their beliefs include disapproval of the existence of Catholics and Jews in their neighborhood. Or anywhere, I gather. And, their habit of burning crosses has seared the idea into people's minds that they're a Christian splinter group.

I'm no expert, but it looks like "The Islamic World" is nowhere near being a unified entity. From Saudi Arabia, where religious fanatics seem to be running the judiciary, to Indonesia, where religious fanatics are trying to topple the government for not being Islamic enough, there's at least as much of a divide as between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who want to kill infidels in America, and elsewhere; and the infidels, who, by and large, would rather not be killed.

Certainly not for offenses like wearing pants.

The impression I get is that many of these "Islamic" countries are what America would be like, if the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka ran the show.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

It's Arabic, Is It Islamic?

Islam sometimes seems to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia contains Mecca, the city all Muslims must visit at least once, if possible. And Saudi Arabia is one of the most prominently and proudly Islamic country in the world.

Islam is closely identified with the Arab world, and the Middle East.

That may be why it's so hard to sort out what's Islamic and what's Arabic, or Middle Eastern.

I think it's important to figure out where Islam ends and Middle Eastern cultural standards begin. It's easy to assume that

• Outfits like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which claim to be defending Islam, represent typical Islamic beliefs
• Saudi Arabia represents the best and brightest that Islam has to offer, in terms of a government following Islamic beliefs

I sincerely hope that these assumptions are not true. Here's why:

• Not long ago, the local Taliban told a teenage boy in Afghanistan was told to stop teaching English after school. When he disobeyed them, the Taliban members dragged him into the street and executed him. Unpleasantly.
  • The Taliban have killed teachers and students before, for attending government-run schools. The Taliban think those schools are un-Islamic.
• Meanwhile, back in Saudi Arabia, a young woman was raped. She's going to be lashed 200 times, and do jail time.
• It took "six heavily-armed men" - maybe seven - to carry off the assault. They were sentenced to between one and five years.
• The young woman was sentenced to 90 lashes first, for being in a car with a man who isn't an immediate relative. The 200 lashes came after she talked to the press about what was being done to her.
• To be fair, the rapists' sentences were increased, too: Now they're supposed to serve two to nine years.
• Shiite Muslims aren't happy about this little matter. She's Shiite. The rapists are Sunni. Sunni Muslims run Saudi Arabia.

I hope that executing teenagers for teaching English and flogging rape victims is not part of Islamic belief. I want to believe that this sort of barbarity is a cultural quirk, not something supported by the five pillars of Islam.

I'll be back to this topic again.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Azerbaijan has been Out of the News And it's Going to Stay There

The Azerbaijani government, and U.S. and British embassies in Azerbaijan, aren't major news items today. That's because Azerbaijan's National Security Ministry raided a radical Islamic group.

The National Security Ministry says one suspect was killed, several others were caught in a village outside Baku, and that some got away: temporarily. The fanatic Muslims included an army lieutenant, who stole 20 hand grenades, a machine gun, four assault rifles and ammunition for the attack. Adding insult to injury, the lieutenant stole the weapons from his own unit.

That raid "prevented a large-scale, horrifying terror attack that was being prepared by members of this group against several state structures in Baku and embassies and missions of the countries which are members of the international anti-terror coalition," according to the Azerbaijani ministry.

The U.S. Embassy told American citizens to keep their heads down. Not in those exact words, of course. the embassy said that, because of a security threat, its consular office was closed indefinitely, and that Americans should "maintain a high level of vigilance."

The British Embassy is in the Landmark building in Baku. The embassy, and several other offices in the building, were closed today. The Landmark receptionist there said that Norway's StatoilHydro ASA and BP Azerbaijan, were also taking the day off.

My biases and beliefs being what they are, I'm generally impressed with people in the rear guard: the Horatios of this world, last to abandon a position.

That's why my hat's of to the Landmark building's receptionist. Terrorists may keep tenants away, but not that receptionist.

Does Free Speech Include Disrupting Funerals?

You can't make this stuff up.

While Iraqi sheiks join forces with Americans to drive terrorists from their country, a small but determined group in Kansas is celebrating the deaths of American GIs.

Here are two examples:

"Thank God for IEDs
(Improvised Explosive Devices)
God Himself Has Now Become America's Terrorist, Killing
Americans in Strange Lands for Brokeback Mountain Fag Sins.
WBC to picket funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder - at
10:15 a.m., Friday, Mar. 10, at St. John's Catholic dog
kennel, 43 Monroe St --- Westminster, Maryland. Killed by
IED - like the IED America bombed WBC with in a terroristic
effort to silence our anti-gay Gospel preaching by violence.

"Thank God for IEDs
God Himself Has Now Become America's Terrorist, Killing
and Maiming American Troops in Strange Lands for Fag Sins.
WBC to picket memorial for Staff Sgt. Donald Munn II -
at 9:15 a.m., Fri., Oct. 26 - at St. Margaret Catholic Dog
Kennel, 21201 Thirteen Mile Rd., Saint Clair Shores, MI.
'For there fell down many slain, because the war was of God.'
I Chron. 5:22. God has irreversibly cursed America."

A nominally Christian outfit, called "Westboro Baptist Church" (WBC) of Topeka Kansas," and run by someone named Fred Phelps, has been taking advantage of the American free speech, as interpreted by the courts, to preach what their leader says is so. (the Westboro Baptist Church of Westboro, Ontario, has nothing in common with the Kansas outfit, apart from the name.)

The WBC seems to think that the American military is run by and for homosexuals, and that God is punishing America for this and other violations of WBC's code of behavior. And, to deal with this perceived situation, they've been picketing the funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Picketing" is something of a euphemism. Westboro Baptist Church followers have carried signs proclaiming "Semper Fi Fags" - with two stick figures that might either be engaged in sodomy, or ineffectively searching for a lost contact lens. There's a sample at one of WBC's websites, www.godhatesfags.com. That site's content is so moonbat crazy that I suspected it might be set up to defame WBC. A quick check confirmed that the Westboro Baptist Church actually had registered the URL.

WBC has made an impact on America. After disgusting enough people by harassing mourning families, we've got several state laws and a federal law about funeral protests.

Now, a Maryland father is carrying the effort to control WBC to the grassroots level.

The father of Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder, Albert Snyder, may be the first individual to file a suit against WBC. And, more to the point, Fred Phelps, the pastor of the outfit. Albert Snyder's motives seem to be what he says they are: "that this suit will spark similar legal actions against Mr. Phelps wherever he seeks to inflict harm upon the memory of our heroes and their families."

Albert Snyder is hardly a hawk, trying to silence anti-war protesters. He told a newspaper: "...And I want answers. They said he was the gunnery on top of the Humvee and the Humvee rolled. When is this senseless war going to end?"

Mr. Snyder's had one setback already. The York Daily Record reports that "Judge: Church didn't defame dad / A federal judge ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church in one part of a lawsuit against them." He's keeping up his efforts to

1. Discourage Mr. Phelps and he merry minnions from hounding mourners
2. Encouraging other victims of WBC to sue the alternatively-fervent bunch to sue, too

A major problem is that, although the legal fees don't amount to much, less than $100,000 USD, that's more than pocket change for someone in Mr. Snyder's position.

Which brings me to a major reason for my posting this.

Lance Corporal Snyder's Father Needs Help

The Snyder family's lawsuit "simply alleges that one does not have the right to conspire to use lies in order to inflict intentional harm upon persons who are grieving the death of their children." Sounds reasonable to me.

Mr. Snyder has a website, www.matthewsnyder.org, where he spells out how you can help.

---

One reason I like living in America is that we enjoy freedom of speech and expression. Even deplorable disgorging like WBC's funeral protests are granted a level of tolerance. I doubt that many governments would put up with Mr Phelps's remarkable views, as expressed on www.godhatesamerica.com.

I do wonder if Westboro Baptist Church would be given so much consideration, if they were not anti-war, but that's an entirely different topic.

Two more points, and I'm done.

1. The Westboro Baptist Church does not accurately reflect Christian beliefs, any more than (I trust) outfits like Al Qaeda accurately reflect Islamic beliefs.
2. Although I've provided links to WBC, I do not endorse their beliefs in any way. As a devout Catholic, I'm not likely to: I regularly attend one of those "Catholic dog kennels;" and the Church does not teach that sort of hatred.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Death to the Movie-Goers! Six Dead in Indian Movie Blast

A bomb went off at a movie theater in India (Shringar Cinema in Ludhiana) Sunday. So far, there are six dead.

So, what does this have to do with the war on terror? Maybe nothing. No group has said 'we did it,' so it could even be some sort of criminal case.

On the other hand, if it was an act of terrorism, I'd guess that it was a Muslim group.

First, it was a movie, and a romance at that ("Janan Janam Ke Saath," or "Together Through Several Lifetimes"). Judging from the way the Taliban and other far-out Islamic groups put their women under sheets, and out-Puritan the Puritans, a crowd of men and women, in a darkened room, watching a romantic movie, would warrant death.

Second, two Muslims were killed a few days before at the shrine of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, a Sufi saint. Someone there set off a bomb in a lunch tin there: during evening prayers.

Which brings up an important point: Non-Muslims aren't the only people getting hurt when Islamic moonbats start frothing at the mouth. Muslims who aren't sufficiently Islamic, or who are drafted as human shields, or who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, get hurt - and killed - too.

It's getting late in my time zone, early, actually, so it's time to stop.

International Law Under a Global Caliphate: Think About It

A particularly nasty rape-and-murder case in Texas had nothing to do with the war on terror, until the International Court of Justice (IC) got involved.

Back in 1993, two teenage girls took a shortcut through a park, interrupted a gang initiation, and were then raped and killed: a process that took about an hour. Ernesto Medellin, the gang member who first grabbed one of the girls, and snapped a nylon belt while strangling one of them, is a Mexican national.

He informed police of his status, but was not informed that he could ask the Mexican consulate for help. Medellin didn't find out that he could appeal to the Mexican consulate until after he was sentenced to death.

Now, the International Court of Justice says that the rights of Medellin and 50 others were violated this way. As I understand it, the IC says their convictions should be overturned, and they should be given new trials.

The White House agrees.

What we have we have here is state law, federal law, and international law getting in each other's way. The IC and the White House point to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, or "1963 Vienna Convention" for short. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on the mess today.

I'm inclined to side with states' rights. On the other hand, I can't support the death penalty (It's a Catholic thing: If there's no other way to protect the innocent, the Church accepts executions - but given what can be done these days, it's rare that killing the criminal is the only solution (heavy paraphrase of the Catechism, 2267).)

And, although I think that eventually there will very likely be a global authority that's competent to rule, I don't think we're there yet.

Here's where the war on terror comes in.

A reasonable goal for Al Qaeda and all the other jihadists, from their point of view, is to establish a global caliphate. Then, we'd have their version of the Islamic dream: the entire world run along the lines of Afghanistan under the Taliban.

I suspect that many people would be more passionate about America winning, if they realized that, although the St. Louis Gateway Arch might be sufficiently abstract to survive, the Statue of Liberty would almost certainly join the Twin Towers as a former feature of the New York City skyline.

I'm not just being emotional here: an over-size, unislamic statue - of a woman - symbolizing freedom, of all things? If I had a Talabanoid mindset, that, and the Lincoln Memorial, would be among the first landmarks to go.

The, there are the dress codes that would be imposed. Women wouldn't be allowed to vote. Or drive. And certainly not go outside the home, unless accompanied by a male relative.

International law, under a Wahhabi Islamic caliphate, would enforce standards that I think many Americans would find more offensive than insisting on the re-trail of a convicted rapist.

American Government Intercepts, Reads Private Correspondence!

And it's a good thing the CIA did.

On September 11 of this year, the CIA intercepted an email to a top member of Al Qaeda in Islamic North Africa, Salah Gasmi. The message brought up the possibility of an attack on the sewage system of Paris.

With no dates or specific places, there's not much to go on. Considering the very real risk, "we can't afford to take the luxury of ignoring it — but it's so vague," a French official said.

Paris isn't alone. London and cities in Italy and Germany are threatened, too.

Don't feel bad if you don't recognize the name Al Qaeda in Islamic North Africa. It's a new name of a Salafist group that's part of an Islamic insurgency in Algeria. That lot now says they're allied to Osama bin Laden's network.

Islam: Salafi, Wahhabi, and That's Just a Start

The phrase "Salafist group" came up in a news item today.

The war on terror has introduced me to many new words and phrases. Looking up "Salafist group," I found what Princeton has to say about the term:

• Salafist Group "Salafast Group for Call and Combat, GSPC (an Algerian extremist Islamic offshoot of the Armed Islamic Group; now the largest and most active armed terrorist group in Algeria that seeks to overthrow the government; a major source of support and recruitment for al-Qaeda operations in Europe and northern Africa)"
• Salafast Group for Call and Combat, "GSPC (an Algerian extremist Islamic offshoot of the Armed Islamic Group; now the largest and most active armed terrorist group in Algeria that seeks to overthrow the government; a major source of support and recruitment for al-Qaeda operations in Europe and northern Africa)"

From another source, I found more detail and background about Salafi Islam. Here's a very brief summary of part of what I found there.

• Salafi: Muslims who believe that they are following Islam as it was in the first three generations.
• Wahhabi: A particular group within those who are Salafi.
• Muwahhidun: ("Unitarians," or "unifiers of Islamic practice") the term which followers of Salafi use to describe themselves.

Not all Salafi are terrorists. Many are very firm in their beliefs, but not violent. There isn't an equivalent in the Christian tradition, but it's somewhat as if a sect of Shakers decided to force simplicity on unbelievers with roadside bombs.

I discussed some branches of Islam in August, including Salafi Islam, Wahhabi Islam, and the Muwahhidun.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred

Not All Muslims are Terrorists

Most terrorists these days are Muslims, but not all Muslims are terrorists. This isn't a very subtle point, but I've run into a few blogs recently that didn't seem to have grasped the idea. I've also run into odd opinions about America's policies, but that's another matter.

If Islam was one big cult of destruction, Indonesia would be very hard to explain. Indonesia is, in terms of numbers of people, the biggest Islamic nation in the world.

As such, Indonesia should be a hotbed of terrorist activity.

Instead, Indonesia, and people visiting the country, are victims of terrorists. Almost five years ago, a tourist spot in Bali blew up and burned, with tourists inside. 202 people died.

to date, it's been the biggest terrorist attack in Indonesia. That's no 9/11, but it was serious enough to be called Australia's 9/11, since over a third of the victims were Australians.

It was the first of four attacks in as many years:

• 2002 Bali nightclub bombings
• 2003 bombing at J.W. Marriott hotel
• 2004 bombing of the Australian Embassy
• 2005 triple suicide attacks on restaurants

The 2002 attacks killed 202 people. The 2003 and 2004 bombings killed 22 in all, about twenty were killed in 2005.

The total fatalities were less than a tenth of 9/11 death toll: but those were attacks, nonetheless. In an Islamic country: the biggest in the world.

And, although news reports still use words like "alleged," Jemaah Islamiyah (الجماعة الاسل, or Islam Community, I think) is almost certainly involved. Those aren't "Crusaders."

The top Indonesian court rejected appeals that lawyers for three "Islamic militants" who "all admitted in court to planning and carrying out the attacks, which they have said were meant to punish the U.S. and its Western allies for alleged atrocities in Afghanistan. They showed no remorse and taunted relatives of the victims in court."

I can understand their lack of remorse. Ali Ghufron, Amrozi Nurhasyim. and Imam Samudra probably believe that their act of mass murder was the will of Allah, and that they'll be well-rewarded.

But, that doesn't mean that all Muslims have those beliefs. Remember: it's the courts of an Islamic nation that's sentenced them to death by firing squad.

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred

"Muslims Against Sharia" Put Money Where Their Mouth Is

Mr. Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist, published a very rude cartoon recently, depicting the prophet Mohammed in a very disrespectful way.

So, Al Qaeda in Iraq is offering upwards of $100,000 USD to anyone who kills Mr. Vilks.

Al Qaeda members may be mostly Muslims, but not all Muslims are aligned with Al Qaeda. Muslims Against Sharia says they're nowhere near to being on bin Laden's page, and they're putting money where their mouth is. Here's a quote, repeated from my "Swedish Dog Displays Blasphemous Images" post of September 19.

"Muslims Against Sharia praise the courage of Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Thorbjorn Larsson and the staff of Nerikes Allehanda and Dagens Nyheter and condemn threats issued by Abu Omar Al Baghdadi and the Islamic State of Iraq. Muslims Against Sharia will provide a payment of 100,000kr (about $15,000) for the information leading to capture or neutralization of Abu Omar Al Baghdadi.

"Muslimer mot Sharia berömmer Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Torbjörn Larsson och övriga anställda på Nerikes Allehanda och Dagens Nyheter för deras tapperhet och fördömer hotet från Abu Omar Al Baghdadi och Islamistiska Iraq. Muslimer mot Sharia betalar 100 000 SEK (ca 15 000$) för information som leder till gripande eller oskadligörande av Abu Omar Al Baghdadi."

Let's remember: Islam is far from uniform; Muslims are not all alike.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Preemptive Strike: Am I a Hawk, or a Dove?

Yes, and no.

Actually, I think I may be more of a turkey.

In the Franklinian sense of the word. In a letter, comparing the eagle and turkey as national emblems, he wrote (in part): "the turkey is in comparison a much more respectable bird, and withal a true original native of America."

I'm hardly a "true original native of America," although my Norwegian and Irish ancestors have been here for a few generations, at least.

Franklin went on, observing that the turkey "... is, besides, (though a little vain and silly, it is true, but not the worse emblem for that), a bird of courage, and would not hesitate to attack a grenadier of the British guards, who should presume to invade his farmyard with a red coat on."

Truthfully, I might hesitate. I am acutely aware how precious and fragile life is. But I do believe that self-defense is a legitimate option, on the personal as well as on the national level.

A comment on an earlier post, "Diplomacy: A Noble Ideal," observed that "... I get the idea that you are just a couple of steps removed from saying 'Pre-emptive Stike'. I might be wrong though."

My response at the time wasn't the best I've ever written. It was about 2 in the morning at the time. The point raised was a good one, so I'm taking another go at it here.

Traditionally, in American culture at least, 'the good guy' waits for 'the bad guy' to strike the first blow. That's a fine attitude to have.

These days, however, quite a few people can die in that first blow.

Let's assume, as a hypothetical situation, that an Islamic group, in an excess of zeal, decides that San Francisco should be wiped from the face of the earth.

This isn't as wild a stretch of the imagination as it may seem. San Francisco prides itself on a progressive and enlightened policy with regards alternative lifestyles.

This doesn't seem to be consistent with views expressed from some of the more extreme Islamic groups. In fact, Iran recently executed a couple of gay men. It's not quite as simple as it seems, of course. One homosexual publication ran a curiously conciliatory article on how Iran is really very tolerant.

At any rate, let's assume that some imam decided that San Francisco had to go.

A nuclear device, detonated in the sky over San Francisco, would very likely kill a sizable percentage of the three-quarters of a million people who live there.

Would it be right to stop such an attack by destroying facilities that make and maintain the weapon? Even if some people who make the weapon and maintain the weapon are killed in the process?

Well, maybe San Franciscans deserve it. After all, they're Americans. Many of them, anyway. And you know what Americans are like

Okay, let's pick another city: Bandar Lampung, in Indonesia. Isn't quite as big as San Francisco, but is home to over a half-million people. There's no particular reason, so far as I know, for wanting to destroy that city. But let's assume that someone with nuclear weapons decided that it wasn't sufficiently Islamic.

Again, would it be be right to stop such an attack, even if people involved in making the attack possible might be killed?

That's a tough one. Let's say there are two options.

• Maintain high and noble ideals, and let a sizable fraction of a half-million people experience, briefly, the inside of a nuclear fireball. And let others witness the spectacle of a shattered and burning city: up close and personal.
• Abandon hopes of being a 21st century Ghandi: Trade the lives of terrorists, and people hired by terrorists, for the a city-full of (relatively) innocent people.

I'm glad that I'll most likely never be in a position to make that sort of decision.

Making things more complicated for me, I'm a devout Catholic. The Catholic Church has a 'just war' teaching. A good place to start looking at this teaching is in the Catholic Catechism, 2309: "The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain
• All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective
• There must be serious prospects of success
• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

"These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine."

"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

Notice: "Just war" doesn't forbid all warfare. Self-defense is allowed, under carefully-defined conditions.

Back to hawks, doves, turkeys, and a "preemptive strike."

As I said, I'm more of a Franklinian turkey, than a hawk or dove.

I have no more information about what's going on in Syria, Iran, North Korea, or any other country with a regrettable policy regarding terrorism, than any other citizen can have. I don't know enough to say 'strike now.'

But, I very sincerely hope that the leaders of this country understand that they are dealing with people who are not at all nice, not at all reliable, who have demonstrated that they like to kill infidels: and that most Americans are infidels.

Ironically, if our leaders decide to maintain the high road of diplomatic non-violence, letting thousands, or millions, of people get killed in the next major attack, they are unlikely to receive the award they deserve.

Even if they survive, the Nobel Peace Prize may be abolished, for being insufficiently Islamic.

Swedish Dog Displays Blasphemous Images

Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoonist with a price on his head, showed a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad to a seminar in Stockholm on yesterday.

Why that "Swedish Dog" term in the headline? It's how "Islamic World News أخبار العالم الاسلامي refers to the Swedish cartoonist.

"Nobody has really seen this image and it has just become more and more impossible to show it, so I thought that ordinary people should be given the possibility to see it live," he told the 100 or so people at a seminar.

I wonder what number Mr. Vilks considers "nobody." The cartoon, or one very much like the famous one, is displayed on his website.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is offering upwards of $100,000 USD to anyone who kills Mr. Vilks. One of the under-reported aspects of this is how Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been corrupted. I'd have thought that more people would be shocked at how western they're acting: offering money, rather than appealing to jihadic zeal.

I hope that Mr. Vilks, and others involved in this cartoon's publication, take care of themselves. Islamic enthusiasts aren't particularly noted taking insults lightly.

Remember Theo van Gogh? A Muslim killed him after Mr. van Gogh made a film, "Submission," that followers of Islam didn't like. Muslims had good reason for disapproving of the film. At best, Muslim women in the film, whose "chadors and gowns are transparent," make the movie insulting.

However, Michael Moore has offended conservatives and some Christians in America, and he's still very much alive.

Back to Mr. Vilks and his appalling diplomatic skills.

An earlier post, "Death to the Cartoonist! Death to Swedish Dog!" discussed the Swedish cartoonist's drawing and how some Muslims reacted. Happily, a group I hadn't heard of, Muslims Against Sharia, posted a comment on that post. I'm taking the liberty of quoting their comment.

"Muslims Against Sharia praise the courage of Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Thorbjorn Larsson and the staff of Nerikes Allehanda and Dagens Nyheter and condemn threats issued by Abu Omar Al Baghdadi and the Islamic State of Iraq. Muslims Against Sharia will provide a payment of 100,000kr (about $15,000) for the information leading to capture or neutralization of Abu Omar Al Baghdadi.

"Muslimer mot Sharia berömmer Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Torbjörn Larsson och övriga anställda på Nerikes Allehanda och Dagens Nyheter för deras tapperhet och fördömer hotet från Abu Omar Al Baghdadi och Islamistiska Iraq. Muslimer mot Sharia betalar 100 000 SEK (ca 15 000$) för information som leder till gripande eller oskadligörande av Abu Omar Al Baghdadi."

It's my opinion that Islam is going through a very interesting time in its history. Muslims have very serious decisions to make. But, that's for another post.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Death to the Cartoonist! Death to Swedish Dog!

First, and very importantly: I'm not suggesting that Lars Vilks be killed. I'm not suggesting that any cartoonist be killed.

But others have a different point of view.

"Video: Al Qaeda Offers Bounty for Swedish Cartoonist" The guest author in this video clip has some very interesting point. WARNING: This video clip is from Fox News. It has not been passed by the editorial board of "The New York Times," and has not been approved by the ACLU. Viewer discretion is advised.

Al Qaeda, Iraq, has raised the price on Lars Vilks' head to $150,000 USD, provided certain conditions are met. Al Qaeda, Iraq, also offers additional $50,000 USD for the life of an editor involved in publishing the cartoon.

I agree that drawing a picture of a dog with Mohammed's face is in very poor taste. In fact, I'd call it tacky.

I can sympathize with the distaste Muslims feel at seeing such a cartoon. It must be like the revulsion I feel, as a devout Catholic, each time an "irreverent" anti-Catholic cartoon shows up. Particularly since "irreverent" is praise in this culture, when discussing 'critically acclaimed' work.

However, I'd never suggest that anti-Catholic cartoonists and editors be killed. In fact, I'm forbidden from that sort of action.

Al Qaeda, Iraq, and and other jihadist organizations, do not seem to have such inhibitions.

What's happening to Lars Vilks shows what we'll enjoy, if these religious fanatics have their way. It's obvious that cartoonists, and anyone else with opinions which deviate from what Islamic fundamentalists believe, will lose their rights to free speech: and, most likely, their heads.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Does Anyone Really Believe Censorship Isn't Happening?

Lars Vilks published cartoons, showing the prophet Mohammed (first strike) in a disrespectful way (second strike) in July, 2007. Now, Al Qaeda in Iraq is offering $100,000USD for the head of Lars Vilks (yer out!).

It reminds me of May, 2006, when Muslims were offended by other cartoons. Some headlines then were "Al-Qaeda Threatens 3 EU States over Mohammed Cartoons," and, showing great compassion, " Algeria cartoon publishers jailed." The latter news account said that "according to Algerian law, both journalists now face between three and five years in jail for 'insulting the prophet'." The article was quite calm. I'm glad the journalists didn't lose their heads.

The 2006 flap was over cartoons in a Danish paper, re-published in Norway and elsewhere. All twelve cartoons are displayed in the Brussles Journal's "Danish Imams Propose to End Cartoon Dispute." The Journal's slogan is "defending freedom of speech in Europe."

As of early 2006, the imam's idea of ending the "cartoon dispute" involving Jywallands-Posten, the infidel paper which posted the cartoons was that "Jyllands-Posten admit that publishing the cartoons was wrong and make amends for it." In a way, the demand is very moderate, assuming that no beheadings are involved in making "amends."

As a devout Catholic, I'd be satisfied if all anti-Catholic cartoons were so restrained and polite as the ones the imams were fussing about.

Back to Lars Vilk.

Samples from the latest cartoon flap are displayed (as of today's date) at Wikipedia's "Lars Vilks Muhammad cartoons controversy"

I'll admit that portraying a Mohammed with a dog's body is quite disrespectful. But, as an American, I'm used to seeing over-the-top depictions of leaders and cultural icons.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has a different attitude. "Al Qaeda: $100G To Kill Swedish Cartoonist" was the way WCBSTV.com put it. "The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq offered money for the murder of a Swedish cartoonist who recently produced images deemed insulting to Islam and promised a new offensive in Iraq during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, in a statement carried by Islamist Web sites Saturday."

While looking for these anti-Islam cartoons, I found a very helpful page. It included links to the "Swedish Dog," sites which published the 2006 cartoons, and a list of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Mohammad cartoons.

Here's an excerpt.

"Islamic World News أخبار العالم الاسلامي

"Islamic Studies دراسات اسلامية
14 سبتمبر, 2007
حرية التعبير والإساءة إلى رسول الإسلام
(The Arabic phrase after the date translates as
"Freedom of expression and offend the Prophet of Islam" (World Star Dictionaries, Translators and Encyclopedias, and Google translation service))

"http://www.vilks.net Lars Vilks Cartoons :: Swedish Dog Mohamed Cartoon Draws.

"http://www.vilks.net الموقع الخاص بالفنان الذي رسم محمد ("The relative to site the artist who Mohammed drew" (systransoft.com)")

"http://www.vilks.net/?p=936 Lars Vilks Cartoons :: Swedish Dog Mohamed Cartoon Draws."

And so on. "Swedish Dog" is repeated fairly often.

Reading "Islamic World News أخبار العالم الاسلامي", remember that this, unlike sites and blogs which criticize Islam, is not a hate site, and does not promote violence or racism.

Meanwhile, is Australia, Australian Christian Lobby head Jim Wallace, is a non-Muslim who disapproved of pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot being convicted of inciting "hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of" Muslims.

The infidel preachers claim that "they had merely informed Christians about Islamic teachings, based on the Koran and other Islamic texts."

Wallace said that the finding against the pastors probably meant that Australians

It's hard to for me to verify any of this, since most of the online references to both Wallace and the Mohammed cartoons matter have been removed from the Web, or been re-edited.

Having grown up in a country which supports free speech, I have misgivings about censorship, and regard propaganda skeptically.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Osama bin Laden: Media Star

If you liked Osama bin Laden's video that came out earlier this month, you'll love his new video, appearing soon on a screen near you!

At least, that seems to be what Al Qaeda is hoping. An "Islamic militant Web site" featured a banner announcing bin Laden's coming hit. The New York Sun's Associated Press article quoted the banner in English, although I'm pretty sure it's a translation. Here it is:

"'Coming soon, God willing, the testament of the attacks on New York and Washington, Abu Musab Waleed al-Shehri, presented by Sheik Osama bin Laden, God preserve him,' the banner read. It showed an image of Sheik bin Laden wearing the same black beard and clothes as in the most recent video."

I'm not a big Bin Laden fan, myself, mostly because I prefer a society where my wife can get groceries on her own, my daughters can learn to read and write, and my son won't be taught to beat his future wife and daughters. Call me a bigot, but I don't approve of beliefs like that.

As a reminder of a previous Al Qaeda mega-happening, Abu Musab Waleed al-Shehri is one of the nineteen martyrs who struck a blow against the infidel five years and 364 days ago today.

(I learned something today. Sheik (شيخ‎) seems to be Bin Laden's preferred title, so in the spirit of multiculturalism, I'll drop the western "Mr.")

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Celebrate Today, or You're a Bigot!

This does not help.

"Participate in Muslim Day Parade in NYC" "Apparently some bigots are continuing on this dehumanization campaign trying to imply that this event is violent. In reality it is a day of family fun, games, contests, and lectures."

What monster could be against something so wholesome?

The next paragraph tells more about this upcoming celebration of diversity and tolerance.

"The New York chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-NY) today called upon Muslims and all New Yorkers who support diversity, tolerance, and harmony to participate in the 22nd United American Muslim Day Parade scheduled for Sunday, September 9th. The parade aims to bring together various ethnic and religious communities in promoting a better understanding of Islam and fostering interfaith cooperation despite misleading campaigns against it on Islamophobic websites."

The paragraph appears to be quoted from a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) news release - except for The last phrase, "despite misleading campaigns against it on Islamophobic websites." So far, I can only find that phrase on the "Jihad of Umar" page.

[UPDATE, October 1, 2007 - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been revised since this post: the above link now is redirected to the CAIR home page.]

One of the "Islamophobic" websites seems to be "Muslim-American Day Parade in NYC Celebrates 9/11 / UPDATE: Attend Muslim Day Parade Counter Rallies Sept.9, 2007 NYC." This is the most hate-filled, Islamphobic, bigoted statement I could find on the page:

"So why is this parade being held on September 9?

"I, for one, am not about to stand together with those who subscribe to an expansionist, totalitarian, enemy ideology that is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and with the survival of our way of life. And if Bloomberg had any sense, neither would he!"

Apparently, the website is Bloombergophobic, too.

Compare this to the open-minded and tolerant CAIR statement:

"'The rhetorical attacks on the parade are clearly an attempt to demonize and marginalize the American Muslim community,' said CAIR-NY President Omar Mohammedi, Esq. 'Our city prides itself on its diversity. Such bigoted attacks should not be tolerated.'"

As a Dilbert character said, several years ago, about "diversity:" 'de more you have, di verse it gets.' (I've enjoyed living in places where people whose ancestors came from different places, who had different beliefs, and whose home language wasn't necessarily English: but that obviously isn't what "diversity" means, these days.)

Back to the parade.

I understand that CAIR and company had been holding their parade and social bash for several years, before their fellow-Muslims ran two airliners into the New York Trade Center's Twin Towers.

I suppose it is bigoted, in the current sense of the word, to not feel good about CAIR and the merry Muslims carrying on with the parade, despite the thousands of people who were burned, crushed, or sprayed over New York City as Muslims brought down the World Trade Center.

Of course, if crazed Christians had killed thousands of people, and a Christian group carried on with a 'tolerate us!' parade timed to go off two days from the outrage's anniversary, that would be an entirely different matter.

Posts on this general topic:

• Celebrate Today, or You're a Bigot!
  (September 9, 2007)
• If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP
  (September 1, 2007)
• Beware Hate: From Any Side
  (August 28, 2007)
• Special Consideration Doesn't Help
  (August 27, 2007)
• Jihad Rehab
  (August 22, 2007)
• Muslims Are Not All Alike
  (August 19, 2007)
• More about "Yeh Hum Naheen" / "This is Not Us"
  (August 9, 2007)
• Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten
  (August 9, 2007)
• Moderate Muslim Video from Pakistan: Very Good News
  (August 7, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks
  (July 17, 2007)
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota
  (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate
  (July 16, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion" 2
  (July 15, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion"
  (July 6, 2007)

When Osama Talks, People Listen

When I started "Another War-on-Terror Blog, I saw it as a chronicle and commentary on the major conflict of the early 21st century. I still do.

It is not a "political" blog. I'm interested in individual politicians and political parties in America, and elsewhere, only as I believe they are involved in this conflict.

However, I have very definite views about this conflict. For example, I would prefer that my family survive, and that we not live in a land where women must be confined to a house, unless accompanied by a kinsman. Judging from what has happened in countries where the West's enemies rule, this isn't an unreasonable concern.

Osama bin Laden has a new video. It surfaced in America, ahead of its planned release date. The early opening was apparently the reason why Al-Qaeda-affiliated websites around the world shut down, coming back online one by one. A reasonable presumption is that the jihadists were concerned about a security problem with their online presence, and were taking steps to find and fix it, if it existed.

If bin Laden was a media star, his career would be in serious trouble. This video is the first one he's released since 2004.

However, since he's a sort of religious leader/military commander/philosopher, bin Laden's status doesn't seem to have suffered.

I'm afraid that this is going to be a rather long post, since I make extensive quotes from a translated transcript of bin Laden's speech. I believe this is necessary, to do justice to Sheik in Laden's remarkable statements.

The short version of the speech is that:

• "The major corporations" are responsible for the Vietnam War, JFK's assassination, and the Bush presidency
• America should get out of Iraq
• The Democratic party is greatly to blame for not getting America out of Iraq
• The Democratic party is a tool of the major corporations
• People of America should rise up, overthrow their oppressors, embrace Islam, and live happily ever after

I'll freely grant that I'm doing nothing to make his words sound sensible.

Here's a brief (no, really, it's brief, compared to the original) set of excerpts from bin Laden's latest video. I've put a few key words and phrases in bold.

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment.

"And here is the gist of the matter, so one should pause, think and reflect: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being in the majority?

"I will come back to reply to this question after raising another question, which is:"

What follows is a series of references to the Bush Administration, the Vietnam War, and the JFK assassination. bin Laden reminds us that "al-Qaida wasn't present at that time, but, rather those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing."(!) Apparently, "the major corporations," angered at JFK's plans to end the Vietnam war, were somehow for JFK's assassination.

A bit later, he gets back to the Democrats.

"So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats' failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war. Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment - and there isn't any - in the Democrat's failure to stop the war. And you're the ones who have the saying which goes, 'Money talks.' And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war.

"However, there are two solutions for stopping it. The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against your. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out, and I ask Allah to grant them resolve and victory. And the second solution is from your side. It has now become clear to you and to the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations.

"And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factors of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representatives of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerated fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.

"And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown - still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings. So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system.

"If you were to ponder it well, you would find that in the end, it is a system harsher and fiercer than your systems in the Middle Ages. The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of 'globalization' in order to protect democracy."

And the speech goes on.

After that section, I half-way expected him to say, 'workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!' Come to think about it, he did say something like that.

Bin Laden offers Islam as a tax-free alternative, a religion that "also puts peoples' lives in order with its laws; protects their needs and interests; refines their morals' protects them from evils; and guarantees for them entrance into Paradise in the hereafter through their obedience to Allah and sincere worship of Him alone."

It sounds great, but after seeing what the Taliban did to Afghanistan while they were running the place, I'm not all that keen on living under an Islamic state. At least not one like that.

I could live with that wonderful Islamic fashion statement, the burqa: particularly since, as a man, I wouldn't have to wear one. I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to wear white socks. Apparently, women were forbidden to wear them.

Burqas and a white-sock ban are relatively trivial, although I think it shows how micro-managed an Islamic state would be under the ministrations of the likes of bin Laden and crew.

What really disturbs me is what happened to the people at Robatak Pass and Yakaolang.

And, what happened to two irreplaceable works of art after a sufficiently Islamic state took over. I'd known about the Buddhas of Bamyan, and would have preferred to live in a world where they still existed. The AIIS slide show of the Bamiyan Buddhas just aren't be the same as having the real thing available.

I know that the Taliban isn't bin Laden's Al-Qaeda, but the two outfits seem to be on about the same page, when it comes to what constitutes true Islam.

A transcript of a translation of bin Laden's new video is available at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/bin_laden_transcript.pdf

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Bin Laden's New Video

Osama bin Laden has something in common with J. K. Rowling. Somehow, copies of Rowling's final "Potter" book were released early. I felt sympathy for the loyal fans, whose excitement and enjoyment of the final Potter book's release was blunted by the premature exposure.

Osama bin Ladn's new video was found and released, apparently before Al Qaeda wanted, by America. Not long after Washington said it had the video, "all the Islamic militant Web sites that usually carry statements from Al Qaeda went down and were inaccessible, in an unprecedented shutdown."

It's frustrating, when the impact of a major media work is diminished by early release. Somehow, though, I can't find it in me to feel sorry for Al Qaeda.

One expert said he thought that Al Qaeda took down the sites, in connection with trying to find out how the video was leaked.

There's a transcript of the video on the Fox News site.

This is the first bin Laden video released since October, 2004. If he were a singer, I'd say that his career was in trouble.

Joking aside, the news reports say that there's no definite indication of a 9/11-type attack on America, and it's possible that this video was intended to impress the infidels over here with bin Laden's superior beliefs.

I've heard, and read, that Islamic belief and tradition forbids conversion-by-force without first telling the infidel to adopt Islam. I'm skeptical of the online resources I found, though, and don't have easy access to works like the Hidayah.

So, I don't know whether bin Laden's offer to Americans to embrace Islam is a example of an ask-first-then-attack custom, or not.

It's late, I'll get back to this another day.

A note about this blog: to date, I've been referring to bin Laden's outfit as "al Qaeda." Starting today, I'll by writing, "Al Qaeda," since the definite article in the organization's name is part of the name, just like "the" is part of the name of "The New York Times."

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.