Arthur Chrenkoff posts today on what he calls. "A fascinating glimpse on the authorities' search for the common intersection in the otherwise diverse lives of the eight London bombers," and reminds us that the same pesky Finsbury Park mosque with the hate-spewing mouthy imam was "also the launching pad for the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid and the "19th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui."

Although Arthur finds it "amazing how much trouble can come out of one place - and by extension, what a timely action of the type only contemplated now against those inciting jihad (such as deportation) could have possibly achieved to prevent the current troubles," I find it to be more an example of too little, too late. It's a weakly punative action following too much hate and violence that's been allowed to be taught to Muslim youth from mosque pulpits by Islamist clerics, for far too long.

On the other hand, few can disagree with Arthur's observation that "we shouldn't think there are easy solutions," because there aren't any. Yet, we have to start somewhere, sometime, doing what is necessary to end the insanity of Islamofascism and the mindset and actions of those that tolerate, support it, and facilitate it. As Arthur writes in his closing, "It's going to be a long, long conflict."

Just how long and how costly in terms of innocent lives lost and dollars spent on terrorism that could be much better placed on making our lives healthier, more comfortable, and more useful, may very well depend upon our immediate recognition of our enemy's agenda, our collective(as a civilization) willingness to speak and act as one voice against Islamofascism and all it's tenets and acts, and on the speed and actions taken to stop the madness of the Islamist's agenda to "establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Or, "to cite the Daily Telegraph, their "real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."""

That agenda must be stopped dead in it's tracks!

As Mark Steyn has said, "Terrorism itself will end only when the broader culture refuses to tolerate it. There would be few if any suicide bombers in the Middle East if "martyrdom" wasn't glorified by imams and politicians, if pictures of local "martyrs" were not proudly displayed in West Bank grocery stores, if Muslim banks did not offer special "martyrdom" accounts to the relicts thereof, if schools did not run essay competitions on "Why I want to grow up to be a martyr."" To which I add, "and when we in the West stop tolerating such crap!"

Yet, on the matter of "tolerating the madness of that broader culture, the culture of Islam," aren't many in the West just as guilty when we look the other way or offer excuses and pretend that gee, it's just a few extremists and if only the moderate Muslims will speak up?

Even if truly moderate Muslims exist, which some doubt, again, borrowing from Mark Stein, "Why are we surprised that "Muslim moderates" rarely speak out against the evil committed by their co-religionists when the likes of Mr Paddick keep assuring us there's no problem? It requires great courage to be a dissenting Muslim in communities dominated by heavy-handed imams and lobby groups that function effectively as thought-police.""

It's true that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, or involved in terrorism, and this needs to be said strongly if people assert otherwise. But if the Metropolitan Police really believe what Brian Paddick says, if they really, truly think that the words "Islam" and "terrorism" must not be linked, then we have little hope of catching the killers, of understanding how the terrorism works, or of preventing new atrocities.

If you substituted the phrase, "politicians and apologists for Islam," for "Metropolitan Police" in the above paragraph, you'd be reading a statement that is 'right-on' target. Let's leave the issue of contribution to terrorism for just a moment to digress to the terrorism conducted by the IRA:

You can show this with a simple comparison. When Britain was afflicted by Irish republican terrorism, most Irish people repudiated that terrorism. It was nevertheless the case that the great majority of the terrorists - more than 95 per cent - were Irish, or of Irish origin, and they drew overwhelmingly on Irish people to help and hide them.

This was not a funny coincidence. It was because the IRA preached a doctrine about Ireland and called on the loyalty of a perverted version of Irishness. Therefore, the words "Irish" and "terrorist" went together, hard though this was on the majority of Irish people. The Brian Paddicks of the day would have been appallingly negligent if they had not concentrated their investigations among the Irish. And the vigilance of the public, which the police then and now rightly call for, inevitably directed itself towards Irish neighbours, Irish accents, Irish pubs.

So it must be with Muslims in Britain. In fact, the situation is more serious because we are dealing with a religion, not merely a national aspiration, and the demands of a religion are more absolute than anything else. If fanatics can persuade people that their religion insists that they kill others (and often themselves) in its service, then they will obey. And whereas the IRA, though utterly sadistic and fanatical, kept in mind a political aim which, once achieved, would mean that they need kill no longer, the religious fanatic lacks even this check on his behaviour.

Here, what applies to Muslims in Britain, applies to Muslims throughout the World, since it is indeed a worldwide 'War on Terror' that we are engaged in and it doesn't involve Irish Catholics, Jewish rabbis, caucation 90 year-old ladies and 40 year-old housewifes with their infants and young children at their side trying to get through and airport screener in order to embark on their vacation - all terrorists being combatted in the worldwide war against terror, are Muslims. Like it or not, that's a fact! Continuing on with Moore's piece:

From time to time, perhaps, he will kill for a specific reason - to take power in one country, to drive foreign troops out of another - but, in principle, there is no end to his killing until everyone who does not share his particular version of truth is exterminated.

We could continue here by re-visiting some of the historical aspects of the development of Muslim terrorists and the spread of terrorism discussed in my previous post, but instead, let's glance at a significant stoker of the fires of terrorism, our friends the Saudis. The following excerpts are from the testimony by Dr. Alex Alexiev,
Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, Thursday, June 26, 2003:

(...) While the Wahhabis have always been sympathetic to Sunni Muslim extremists and evidence exists that they have supported such people financially as early as a century ago, the real Saudi offensive to spread Wahhabism aggressively and support kindred extremist groups world-wide began in the mid-1970s, when the kingdom reaped an incredible financial windfall with rocketing oil prices after Riaydh's imposition of an oil embargo in 1973. "It was only when oil revenues began to generate real wealth," says a government publication, that "the kingdom could fulfill its ambitions of spreading the word of Islam to every corner of the world.

(...) Islamic extremism as an ideology is hardly new with the first movement that resembles today's phenomenon, known as the Kharijites, appearing shortly after the birth of Islam in the 7th century. Later it was expounded on by various Islamic scholars, such as Ibn Taymiiya in the 13th century, but it did not become institutionalized until the mid-18th century when the theories promulgated by the radical cleric Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab were accepted and imposed as the state religion of his realm by the founder of the House of Saud. Wahhabism, as this creed got to be known, like most other extremist movements before it, believed that traditional Islamic virtues and beliefs have been corrupted and preached a return to the ostensibly pure Islam of the time of the Prophet and his companions.4 In reality, Wahhab's extreme doctrines contradicted and stood on their head major tenets of traditional Islam and in a real sense represent an outright falsification of the Muslim faith.

(...) Saudi financing of Islamic extremism plays such a huge role in its emergence as a global phenomenon that a proper understanding of it is impossible without coming to terms with its dimensions. Simply put, without the exorbitant sums of Saudi money spent on supporting extremist networks and activities, the terrorist threat we are facing today would be nowhere as acute as it is.

(...) There are no published Western estimates of the numbers involved, which, in itself, is evidence of our failure to address this key issue, but even the occasional tidbits provided by official Saudi sources, indicate a campaign of unprecedented magnitude. Between 1975 and 1987, the Saudis admit to having spent $48 billion or $4 billion per year on "overseas development aid," a figure which by the end of 2002 grew to over $70 billion (281 billion Saudi rials).11 These sums are reported to be Saudi state aid and almost certainly do not include private donations which are also distributed by state-controlled charities. Such staggering amounts contrast starkly with the $5 million in terrorist accounts the Saudis claim to have frozen since 9/11. In another comparison, it is instructive to put these figures side by side with the $1 billion per year said to have been spent by the Soviet Union on external propaganda at the peak of Moscow's power in the 1970s.

(...) Though it is claimed that this is "development aid" it is clear from the Saudi media and government statements alike that the vast majority of these funds support "Islamic activities", rather than real developmental projects. For example, a report on the yearly activities of the Al Haramain Foundation described as "keen on spreading the proper Islamic culture" are listed as follows: "it printed 13 million (Islamic) books, launched six internet sites, employed more than 3000 callers (proselytizers), founded 1100 mosques, schools and cultural Islamic centers and posted more than 350,000 letters of call (invitations to convert to Islam)" while the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), another key "charity," completed 3800 mosques, spent $45 million for Islamic education and employed 6000 proselytizers.12 Both of these organizations have been implicated in terrorist activities by U.S. authorities and both operate directly out of Saudi embassies in all countries in which they do not have their own offices.

(...) The Saudi money is spent according to a carefully designed plan to enhance Wahhabi influence and control at the expense of mainstream Muslims. In Muslim countries, much of the aid goes to fund religious madrassas that teach little more than hatred of the infidels, while producing barely literate Jihadi cadres. There are now tens of thousands of these madrassas run by the Wahhabis' Deobandi allies in South Asia and also throughout Southeastern Asia. In Pakistan alone, foreign funding of these madrassas, most of which comes from Saudi Arabia, is estimated at no less than $350 million per year.13 The Saudis also directly support terrorist activities in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Chechnya, Bosnia and, as noticed above, most of the large Saudi foundations have been implicated in such involvement.

(...) In just one example, the venerable Al Azhar mosque and university in Cairo, which not too long ago was a paragon of Islamic moderation has been taken over by the Wahhabis and spews extremist propaganda on a regular basis. Two of their recent fatwas make it a religious duty for Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons to fight the infidels and justify suicide attacks against American troops in Iraq.18 The Wahhabi project has contributed immeasurably to the Islamic radicalization and destabilization in a number of countries and continues to do so. Pakistan, for instance, an important U.S. ally, is facing the gradual talibanization of two of its key provinces under Wahhabi/Deobandi auspices and the prospect of large-scale sectarian strife and turmoil. Riyadh-financed extremist networks exist presently around the world providing terrorist groups and individuals with a protective environment and support and even the recent terrorist incidents in Saudi Arabia itself do not seem likely to bring about meaningful change.

(...) Already Saudi officials have stated that they do not intend to either change their anti-Western curriculum or stop their "charitable" activities. Yet the evidence of conscious Saudi subversion of our societies and values as partly detailed above is so overwhelming that to tolerate it further would be unconscionable. Failure to confront it now will assure that we will not win the war on terror anytime soon.

So faced with an onslaught of Saudi funding for terrorism around the world, paid for by our trips to gas pumps supporting our love of SUVs and the freedom to roam on our own, how do we shut down the violence and terror preached from the pulpit of the Finsbury Park mosque, and others, throughout the world? After all, much of the Muslim mindset for world domination stems from the perverted interpretations of the Muslim faith by Muslim clerics and their followers, spewed from their lips like water through a fire hydrant - at Friday prayers, on city streets, in Muslim youth centers, and virtually wherever Muslims congregate.

Let's begin by constraining the ideology behind Thursday's bombing by outlawing Saudi funding of British mosques and other institutions, through Saudi businessmen, Saudi charities, and the plethora of other mechanisms used by the Saudis and Islamist groups to fund the spread of Wahhabism and it's child, worldwide terrorism.

Next, following the Stein model, kill terrorists whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself, as 1,200 "insurgents" were said to have been killed in one recent engagement on the Syria/Iraq border the other day. This, while coercing our more laggardly allies like General Musharraf of Pakistan, into shutting down his section of the Saudi-Pakistani-Londonistan Wahhabist pipeline.

And, unfortunately, Stein's suggestion that coaxing is what counts - wooing moderate Muslims into reclaiming their religion, does count. One would think that people of faith, believers in God, his mercy, and his peace, wouldn't need coaxing, but of course we're not dealing with Christians, Jews, Hindus, and such, we're dealing with an easily-hijacked belief, one easily subject to extreme interpretations without any hierarchal restrictions. So we need to take steps to prevent Islamic terrorists killing us, most of the time. However, also as Stein suggests, Islamic terrorists will only stop trying to kill us when their culture reviles them rather than celebrates them. This sounds easier than it is.

However, there are signs in the last week's Muslim newspapers, in London and abroad, that some eminent voices are beginning to speak out. At such a moment, Britain should be on the side of free speech and open debate. Instead, the state is attempting to steamroller through a grotesque law at the behest of already unduly influential Islamic lobby groups. One of its principal effects will be to inhibit Muslim reformers. Shame on us for championing Islamic thought-police over Western liberty.

Meanwhile, terror and violence radiates from within the walls of the Finsbury Park mosque, and at others throughout the world, and like pesky cockroaches, they're creeping and crawling and growing, as we speak and while we sleep. Those pesky mosques and the hate that comes out of them, is the nest from which terrorism breeds, and it is there, in the mosques and in the countries that support them, that we need to begin the extermination of terrorism.

While I don't agree with all of President Bush's policies in fighting the War on Terror, he's a good man in a tough job trying to find his way through a tough problem. Among many of his approaches that I find particularly appropriate, is the Bush doctrine on terrorism, that essentially - any person or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account. Let's just do it.

Cross posted by Hyscience

Supporting and related reading:
THE RISE OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM – OVER OR UNDER-RATED AS A THREAT TO (SOUTH AFRICAN) NATIONAL SECURITY

WAHHABISM: STATE-SPONSORED EXTREMISM WORLDWIDE

London to host Islamic 'celebration' of Sept 11

For a Decade, London Thrived as a Busy Crossroads of Terror

Frontline's "United Kingdom"

Mosque in the spotlight

Should the Police Monitor Public Meetings in Mosques?

Repost: The Saudi Money Trail

Daniel Pipes' Londonistan Follies

Cleric 'supported 5 terror groups'

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 03:28 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 2939 words, total size 20 kb.

1 “Oxford Law Prof alarmed at "police’s Mossad-style execution" of innocent ’suspect’ Police state: Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police’s Mossad-style execution of a ’suspect’ (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July. This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. (Both risks are pretty tiny, but of the two the risk posed by the police is clearly smaller). Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one’s friends than by one’s enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority. Here are some other important things to remember in thinking about the police actions of 22 July: (1) There is no general legal duty to assist the police or to obey police instructions. Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414. (2) There are special police powers to arrest and search. But there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us. (3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482. (4) Arguably, the police should be held to higher standards of calm under pressure than the rest of us. Certainly not lower! (5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count. (6) It is no defence in law that the killing was authorised by a superior officer. A superior officer who authorises an unlawful killing is an accomplice. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482. (7) The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us. ( Some people say: Blame the terrorists, not the police. But blame is not a zero-sum game. The fact that one is responding to faulty actions doesn’t mean one is incapable of being at fault oneself. We may blame Tony Blair for helping to create the conditions in which bombing appeals to people, without subtracting any blame from the bombers. We may also blame the bombers for creating the conditions in which the police act under pressure, without subtracting blame from the police if they overreact. Everyone is responsible for their own faulty actions, never mind the contribution of others. This is the moral position as well as the position in criminal law.” Bellacio

Posted by: Menezes' Ghost at July 27, 2005 03:38 PM (/+dAV)

2 Greg, you better stop stealing other people's material. That's called plagarism and it's against the law. We're going to turn you over to the police. Think about all that dope you have in your possession. You will be found out to be a traitor for sure, and the Patriot Act looms large. I don't know it you can make it in prison, Greg. Think about this the next time you steal posts from the inmates at Indymedia.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 27, 2005 05:33 PM (DDXXI)

3 Jesusland, Go to Finsbury, I gave you the map earlier

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 27, 2005 06:49 PM (ScqM8)

4 No, DSM, you didn't give me no map. That was Greg you gave the map to. You know you and Greg have some business at the mosque with your jihad buddies. You probably want to beat up some girls and old women. That's about your speed.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 27, 2005 07:00 PM (DDXXI)

5 the death of that brazilian guy is exactly why the nuclear option fr mecca looks so good. we end up trading liberty for safety. we need to make the muslim terror problem a problem that muslims solve at their expense and not ours.

Posted by: Mr. K at July 27, 2005 07:20 PM (VudXl)

6 Haysooos, I gave the map to Finsbury to everyone, including you! Beating up old women and girls? That is immoral and illegal. However, BUSH says it's ok to gun them down at checkpoints in Iraq and call them collateral damage. I'm much more Christian than that charlatan is.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 27, 2005 07:57 PM (ScqM8)

7 "Both British and Pakistani officials were “FURIOUS” with the Americans for helping to unmask their spy, according to the New York Daily News, and the Brits had to launch a series of high-speed chases to catch Khan’s fleeing cabal. A senior Pakistani official told the Associated Press “this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some Al Qaeda suspects ran away.” BUSH, in all his clowning glory is a TRAITOR TO AMERICA!!!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 27, 2005 08:01 PM (ScqM8)

8 Greg is not after the young girls. Its the young boys. I see the crazy Downing Street Moron is in bed with him/them. Mr K: Okay, I agree. But how?

Posted by: greyrooster at July 28, 2005 06:11 AM (eVGfQ)

9 Klanrooster - racist pigskinner Rove-Bidet - the boys ran away from you and asked me where the police station was.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:32 AM (ScqM8)

10 I'd like to thank all those of you expressing your support for us here in London. It's nice to know we're not alone. I'd like to make an observation about the recurring threat here in London. Following 9/11, how many attacks have there been in the US? Nil! In London, we have been attacked twice in the space of two weeks and are being advised to expect further attacks. I think the reason behind this is our government's insistence on putting human rights, free speech and civil liberties above the basic right to life. 9% of British Muslims are sympathetic to the London Bombers. That's 45,000 people. Even if only 1% of those are fanatical enough to contemplate jihad, that means there are another 450 home grown bombers waiting to strike. We have so far tracked down 8 (4 suicide bombers and 4 in custody). Also we are consistently told by our government to carry on as normal and show that we are not afraid and that we will not be terrorised. That's OK for Tony Blair and his buddies to say but they don't have to travel on the London Transport System. They have armed guards and chauffeur driven cars. I am very afraid ! So much so that I am aiming to build up clients for my accountancy business as soon as possible so that I can work from home rather than in the city. We have tolerated this Islamic evil for too long but our politically correct government would rather stand up for the terrorists and their sympathisers than for decent law abiding British citizens.

Posted by: Lloyd at August 02, 2005 08:41 AM (mxFdI)

11 Lloyd: Take heart. Our prayers are with you. Right win triumph over these goons.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 02, 2005 11:35 AM (x+5JB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment