IRAN: Why the Israeli Bombers are Coming
Posted on 07/17/2004 7:13:16 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
David Warren is all for naming a certain branch of Islam as the enemy. He argues that common journalistic and policy references to "Al Qaeda" have misidentified the true enemy.
In the course of three years' intense study of the issue, I've become convinced that there is -- well, this is a slight exaggeration -- no such thing as "Al Qaeda". It is, more precisely, only a name applied vaguely to one of several financing and logistical arms of the Wahabi branch of what could more accurately be called the "Islamic Jihad".
And the reason this is so important, he argues, is that it allows Homeland Security to use the appropriate kind of filter in rooting out the enemy. Looking for the Jihadi enemy recalls the scene played out in B-movie science fiction plots where the deadly aliens remain invisible until the sensors are tuned to the right frequency. And then they stand out everywhere.
This may sound a very abstract analysis, but it has practical consequences for "homeland security". For starters, it means we cannot draw neat, legalistic lines between who's in and who's out of the cabal. For instance, a journalist working for Al-Jazeera may be every bit as committed to the struggle as a man rehearsing the assembly of a mid-flight bomb. Each is advancing the Jihad by the means most available to him. And, exempting the one from prosecution while arresting the other is entirely obtuse.
Indications especially from the FBI are to expect a major terrorist hit on North America, sometime between now and the U.S. election in November. I think they are right to expect this. The political, economic, and social fallout from such a hit is unpredictably huge. But I am less and less confident that it can be prevented by anything resembling normal police methods. This is because, thanks chiefly to "political correction", we cannot look at the whole Jihad, and are in fact only looking for the pointy bits.
The idea of grappling with the unnameable threat pervades the writing of Bat Y'eor who recently gave an address to French Senators. What, she asked, was the meaning of all the internal security preparation she had encountered.
One need only look at our cities, airports, and streets, at the schools with their security guards, even the systems of public transportation, not to mention the embassies, and the synagogues – to see the whole astonishing array of police and security services. The fact that the authorities everywhere refuse to name the evil does not negate that evil. Yet we know perfectly well that we have been under threat for a long time; one has only to open one’s eyes and our authorities know it better than any of us, because it is they who have ordered these very security measures. ... Today the war is everywhere. And yet the European Union and the states which comprise it, have denied that war’s reality, right up to the terrorist attack in Madrid of March 11, 2004.
But the problem with conceding the point to David Warren and Bat Y'eor is that it would cause a revolution in domestic and international politics, something neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties are prepared to do. Domestically it would mean that for the first time in American history, a major branch of a world religion would be declare[d] a de facto enemy of the state. Not people, not a country; nothing with a capital unless it be Mecca, but a system of religious belief. It would strike at the very root of the American Constitutional system, the separation of Church and State. Internationally it would signify that the principal enemy host, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose ruling house is intimately connected [with] and support[s] this ideology, must be overthrown or changed. It would indicate that the Iraq campaign, which cost the Bush administration so much political capital, is not the end but the mere beginning.
One the most most important lessons of the Global War on Terror is how closely linked it is with Western domestic politics. The Madrid bombing of March 11, 2004 and the American Presidential elections are perfect examples. The reason for this is simple. Fighting the Jihadi enemy would mean overturning the 20th century political and economic foundations to their roots. It would mean disrupting the Big Tent of political correctness; putting a prosperity heavily dependent on oil supplies at risk; and replacing an entire paradigm of international relations. For that reason the act of naming Wahabi Islam as the principal enemy will [be] evaded until it is absolutely unavoidable; until after a mushroom or biological cloud puts a period after the debate. The only exit from the madhouse that Warren and Y'eor describe is through the door we fear the most, the one which compels us to recognize the foe with no name.
And have been for quite some time.
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE
Oh he's right but he's also dead wrong in narrowing it down only to Wahabi Islam. The Iranian Fundamentalist Shiism is also the problem, and they aren't Wahabi.
Actually that's too polite. It's Islam. Period.
The founding fathers were well aware of Islam and dismissed it. Going back to John Jays interpretation that, "We are Christian nation" is fine by me.
Clerics can quote only the tolerant bits to their followers, and then that Islam variant presents no threat.
How does one go about stamping out an entire religious sect or belief system, and why would we want to anyway?
Take enough of them out, and the others will eventually get the message.
I think you answered your own question.
What status would you assign to your non-Christian countrymen?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
What about a political movement mixed with god-talk that advocates the violent end to the Constitution?
Bump
The Israelis jump in, then they unite the nationalists with the Khomeinists.
Islam is the enemy, Bump
To root out Wahabism in America may require resort to extrajudicial means, unless we want to infiltrate every mosque and charge each seditious imam one at a time.
Any measures the government takes against the Wahabis collectively just because they adhere to the Wahabi sect of Islam create legal precedents that may in the future work to the disadvantage of other, non-Islamic sects.
Superb article. I'm seeing more and more of them confronting this basic issue of naming the enemy. If Bush wins I hope he will have the courage to do it.
Only the ones who are trying to convert everyone else by force and the ones sitting quietly by while their fellow members do it.
How do we deal with that many enemies?
IRAN: Why the Israeli Bombers are Coming
The "take them out " statement didn't refer to my question, which was rhetorical.
It was refering to those individuals within the religion that preach and incite violence, and the ones they incite to carry out those acts.
Nice. but the Israelis aren't that dumb. They fight Iran, they lose.
I am not so sure we know that.
Advocating the violent overthrow of the government is already a crime. All we have to do is prove it in a court of law presided over by liberal judges and defended by the ACLU and the best shysters Prince Bandar can buy.
If the bomb belt don't fit, you must acquit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.