Terrorism and Syria - Jamestown's Special "Syria" Issue
The Jamestown Foundation has just issued their Special Issue on Syria of "Terroism Monitor," an on-line publication. The Jamestown Foundation is the best known independent institute monitoring terrorist organizations.
I am copying the links to their four interesting articles on Syria. I have copied two of the articles in full. One by Sami Moubayed and the other an interview with the British based leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood Ali Bayanouni. All the articles are informative.
Here is the newsletter email.
Published by The Jamestown Foundation
"Terroism Monitor"
August 11, 2005 – Volume III, Issue 16
Abu Mus’ab al-Suri and the Third Generation of Salafi-Jihadists By Murad Al-Shishani
Syria: A Haven for Terrorists? By Sherifa Zuhur
The History of Political and Militant Islam in Syria By Sami Moubayed
The Battle within Syria: An Interview with Muslim Brotherhood Leader Ali Bayanouni
VIEW PDF VERSION
Editor's Note:
Syria is an enigmatic country. Ruled by a Ba'athist regime whose top leadership is drawn from a minority religious sect, Syria must contend with the enmity of the West and Islamists alike. This special issue presents a variety of perspectives on this important and controversial country. The article on Mustafa Setmariam Nasar profiles the extraordinary exploits of this influential al-Qaeda leader. The second article explores official Syrian complicity in the transit of foreign fighters into Iraq, analyzing it in the context of Syria's deteriorating national security environment. An analyst and writer living in Syria raises the concerns over sudden political change by drawing a comparison to neighboring Iraq, where the destruction of the Ba'ath regime has led to the demise of secularism in that country. Finally, the interview with Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and the most important Syrian opposition figure, gives an insight into the ambitions and limitations of Syrian Islamists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Mus'ab al-Suri and the Third Generation of Salafi-Jihadists
By Murad Batal al-Shishani
The decimation of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in 1982 had many long-term implications, the most pernicious of which was the emergence of a particularly extreme form of Syrian Salafism. At the center of this is Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, better known as Abu Musab al-Suri (the Syrian), who is widely believed to be the most prolific al-Qaeda ideologue and trainer alive. Currently working closely with the Zarqawi network, and probably based in Iraq, Nasar also allegedly exercises operational control over several al-Qaeda linked networks in the West.
READ FULL STORY
* * *
Syria: A Haven for Terrorists?
By Sherifa Zuhur
Are Syrian officials aiding the underground mujahideen railroad to Iraq? The many strong opinions on the matter reflect the different views of Syria's future, its relations with neighbors, Iraq and Lebanon, and to jihadist and moderate Islamism. Certainly, we need to look at the totality of Syrian affairs and not simply at isolated cases of questionable behavior. At present it appears the Syrians are more concerned about their decreasing control over a variety of actors in Lebanon than about the progress of mujahideen from Syria eastward. More broadly the Syrians are anxious to assert their cooperation in the global war on terrorism, despite Washington's freezing of certain ministerial and agent's assets, as if protests of innocence will sharpen Washington's aggressive image or prove that the Americans generate a lot of kalam fadi, or empty talk in Arabic.
READ FULL STORY
* * *
The History of Political and Militant Islam in Syria
By Sami Moubayed
The rise of political Islam in Syria can be traced to the 1940s, when a Muslim group called al-Gharra entered parliament, creating an Islamic Bloc to oppose the secular and civilian regime of President Shukri al-Quwatli. In 1944, its leaders presented a long list of demands that included installing special tramcars during rush hour to separate the sexes, shutting down all cabarets and casinos that served alcohol, arresting the owners of nightclubs, and the establishment of a moral police squad, similar to the one in Saudi Arabia, to be charged with patrolling streets and punishing transgressors of Islamic norms. In May 1944, al-Gharra violently protested against a charity ball held in Damascus, which wives of the ruling elite were planning to attend unveiled. Demonstrators took to the streets, carrying revolvers and knives, stoning cinemas that welcomed women and burning nightclubs. To win, the president decided to discredit the clerics in districts where they enjoyed most power; the poor neighborhoods of Damascus.
Quwatli got Adila Bayhum, head of the independent Women's Union, to temporarily cease the free distribution of milk to the city's poor. When mothers came to collect, they were politely turned away and told, "go to the shaykhs, let them give you milk." [1] Then, Quwatli cut off flour distribution in Midan, where the Islamists were popular, knowing perfectly well that nobody else could provide bread since the government controlled all flour rations in the wartime economy. [2] The clerics could not deliver, and overnight the demonstrations supporting the Islamic groups turned against them. This civilized and effective approach is what Syria needs today in order to curb the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, or any other emerging Islamic group.
Consecutive regimes, especially after 1963, did not pursue moderate approaches, however, and clashed with the Brotherhood twice, in 1964 and 1982. The Brotherhood considered the Ba’ath to be secular heretics, and the Ba’athists considered the Brotherhood leaders to be dangerous fanatics who needed to be rooted out from Syrian society. The Muslim Brothers were disturbed by the Ba’athist takeover of 1963 and began to drum up anti-Ba’athist sentiment in Syria’s urban interior. Secret cells of Islamic groups were formed to bring down the Ba’athist regime. In Aleppo, for example, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman Abu Ghuddah, an ally of pre-Ba’athist Syrian President Nazim al-Qudsi and former Mufti of Aleppo, created the Movement for Islamic Liberation. [3] Inflammatory speeches aroused the street, and pulpits were used to denounce the Ba’athist regime. By April 1964, rioting had developed into a religious war in the conservative city of Hama, where arms were used against the government. The prime agitator was Marwan Hadeed, a Muslim leader from Hama who claimed that the Ba’athists, alongside all secular people, were infidels who must be put to the sword. He created a street militia of Islamic extremists to strike at anyone related to the regime, called al-Tali’a al-Muqatila (The Fighting Vanguard). [4] It became unsafe for Ba’athists to walk the streets of Hama unguarded, since those who were caught were beaten, and in some cases killed, by the Islamists. The most famous assassination was that of Munzir al-Shimali, a young member of the Ba’ath National Guard, who was killed and mutilated in Hama. [5] This enraged the Ba’athists and Defense Minister Hamad Ubayd ordered the Syrian Army into Hama, bombarding districts of the city where the Brotherhood were located. Street fighting ensued, and the insurgents took up residence at the Sultan Mosque which was air raided under orders from President Amin al-Hafez. [6] In all, around 70 members of the Brotherhood were killed. Defeated, they put down their arms and ceased their militant activity for the next 15-years, when they re-emerged in 1979 to challenge the regime of President Hafez al-Asad.
A combination of factors triggered the Brotherhood to re-activate in the mid-1970s. First, they had recovered, physically, morally, and financially, from the defeat of 1964. Second, their outrage was at its peek when Asad went to war in Lebanon in 1976, supporting the Christians against the Palestinian guerillas of Yasser Arafat. Third, mass recruitment into the Ba’ath Party made it easy to infiltrate and work from within against the regime. Fourth, the Brotherhood had a strong monopoly over schools, thus enabling it to indoctrinate many children and young adults.
Islamic terrorism reached its peak in June 1979 when the Artillery School was attacked in Aleppo, resulting in the deaths of all its young Ba’athist cadets. Not all of the victims of the violence were Alawi Ba’athists; indeed even members of the Sunni Muslim clergy were targeted by the Brothers and their militant allies. The most prominent victim was Sheikh Mohammad al-Shami, who was slain at his mosque, on February 2, 1980.
Faced with a relentless Islamist onslaught, the Ba’ath regime struck back with remarkable ferocity. At the Ba’ath party’s Seventh Regional Congress (December 23-January 6, 1980), Rifaat al-Asad, the president’s brother, famously proclaimed that loyalty was a must: he who is not with the Ba’ath at this stage is against it. [7] On June 26, 1980, the Brothers tried to kill Asad in Damascus and in turn, he passed law 49 on July 8, which stipulated that membership in the Brotherhood was a capital offense, punishable by death. The fighting peaked on February 2-3, 1982 in Hama, where the Brothers took to the mosque pulpits and called for a “total war” against the Ba’athist regime. Authorities responded with force, giving the Syrian Army orders to crush the insurgency. The army responded positively, crushing the insurgency, and killing many thousands in the process. The defeat in Hama was a massive setback for the Brothers who disappeared from the Syrian political landscape for the rest of the 1980s.
To compensate for the losses it inflicted in 1982, the regime constructed hundreds of mosques throughout the country, and encouraged people to be pious but not fundamentalist and militant, as the Brotherhood had been. This eventually back-fired as “backdoor” sermons on political Islam started to surface once again in the early 1990s. Fiery and militant preachers took over numerous mosques, and banned books by the legendary jihadi ideologue, Said Qutb, were distributed widely.
The U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in March-April 2003, has played an important part in reviving Syrian militant Islam. While some Americans regularly accuse Syria of giving shelter to an assortment of Iraqi and foreign militants – ranging from Saddam Hussein loyalists to Takfiris – the Syrian authorities and the wider public have to contend with the very real twin threat of the revival of the Brotherhood and its many militant and Salafist offshoots. The official position of the Syrian government is that it cooperates with the Americans, if only to neutralize the militant threat inside Syria. True, Syria did turn a blind eye to the fighters who crossed the border to fight in Iraq in 2003, but it soon corrected this policy.
When the fighters were defeated or deported back to Syria, a combination of frustration, anger and despair overtook them. Unable to strike at the Americans in Iraq or the Israelis in Palestine, they unleashed their anger on their fellow Syrians. In addition to the Mezzeh attack of 2004, a group of terrorists were apprehended, after a shooting that caused panic among picnickers, in July 2005 on Mount Qassioun overlooking the Syrian capital. Earlier in the summer of 2005, Syria announced that it had arrested one man and killed another who had been planning an attack in Damascus on behalf of Jund al-Sham, a terrorist organization that has recently emerged in the country.
In order to defeat political Islam in the long-term, the Ba’ath regime continues to promote moderate Islam through regime-friendly clerics like the deputy Mohammad Habash, the Aleppo-based preacher Mohammad Kamil al-Husayni, and new Grand Mufti Ahmad Hassoun, who has announced that he is categorically opposed to political and militant Islam. One of these clerics, for example, has a sign on the gates of his mosque in Aleppo saying: “No to explosions!” There is some speculation that in the event of the sudden demise of the Ba’ath regime, the Brothers and their militant allies would quickly acquire ownership of the Syrian state. Certainly the events in neighboring Iraq since the invasion should be a wake up call for Washington. In Iraq, the U.S.-led invasion has ironically buried Iraqi secularism for good, thus surrendering control of the political landscape to Shi’a and Sunni Islamists
Living in Damascus, one gets the feeling that although overt religiosity is increasing, not all religious people are willing to support, let alone fight for the Islamists. Yet, the Islamic groups do represent a certain segment of Syrian society that cannot be ignored. Recently, some reconciliation steps have been taken by the government, including several amnesties which have set free over 1,000 members of the Brotherhood. In September 2001, Asad allowed the return of Abu Fateh al-Baynouni, the brother of the party’s leader, Ali Sadreddine. [8] But the regime has made it clear that a return to organized political activity, for either the Brotherhood or any other Islamic party, is a red-line that the Islamists would cross at their peril. The regime, however, would be committing a grave mistake by not giving the Islamic activists a platform to express their views (as decided by the Ba’ath Party Conference of June 2005). True, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood remains dangerous, but turning a blind eye to it will not make them go away, nor will it make them any less pernicious.
Notes:
1. Author’s interview with Dr Munir al-Ajlani, a deputy in Damascus in 1943 (September 2, 2000).
2. Ibid.
3. Bawwab, Sulayman. Mawsou’at A’lam Souriyya fi al-Qarn al-Ishreen (vol II 1999). Abu Ghuddah was exiled to Saudi Arabia and remained there until being pardoned in 1997 when he agreed, at the age of 80, to refrain from any political activity. When he died in February 1997, President Hafez al-Asad sent his condolences to the Abu Ghuddah family and his death was broadcasted on the 9:00 pm news on Syrian TV. This was considered the first rapprochement between the Asad regime and the Brotherhood after the events of 1979-1982.
4. Interview with Ali Sader al-Din al-Baynouni, the leader of the banned Muslim Brotherhood, on al-Jazeera TV on July 7, 1999. See also, Ta’ammulat Istratijiyya fi al-Ahdath al-Souriyya (Strategic Observations in Syrian Events), al-Hayat March 11, 2005.
5. Seale, Patrick. Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East p.93 (London 1988).
6. Interview with ex-President Amin al-Hafez on al-Jazeera TV, episode 12 (June 6, 2001).
7. Tishreen (July 1, 1980).
8. The Daily Star (September 21, 2001).
READ FULL STORY
* * *
The Battle within Syria: An Interview with Muslim Brotherhood Leader Ali Bayanouni
By Mahan Abedin
Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni
Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni was born in 1938 in Aleppo and brought up in a religious family, where his father and grandfather were both well known Muslim scholars. He joined the Muslim Brotherhood while in secondary school, in 1954, and went on to receive training as a lawyer. After spending time in prison, he emerged to become the deputy leader of the Brotherhood in 1977. He left Syria two years later and eventually settled in Jordan, where he remained for twenty years. He arrived in Britain as a political refugee in 2000, after the Jordanian authorities requested he leave the country. This interview was conducted on August 5, 2005 in London by Terrorism Monitor editor Mahan Abedin.
Mahan Abedin: How would you characterize the strength of the overall Islamic movement in Syria today?
Ali Bayanouni: There is a continuum of movements, with the Sufis at one end of the spectrum and the Salafis on the other. But there is a mainstream Islamic awakening in the country and the growing religiosity of the people testifies to this. The opposition parties regard the Muslim Brotherhood as the largest and most influential opposition force in Syria. The Syrian regime tries to frighten the West about the Brotherhood and our activities by claiming that any change in the country would facilitate the rise to power of Islamists. This is clearly an exaggeration and designed to prevent any meaningful political change inside the country.
MA: How optimistic are you about change in Syria?
AB: The status quo is unsustainable, especially if Syria is increasingly alienated by the outside world.
MA: Do you still regard the Alawis as a heretical sect?
AB: We do not discriminate against Alawis and as they say they are Muslims, we do not contest that. The problem of Syria remains political, a minority elite has seized a state and is oppressing the majority.
MA: What is your assessment of the pressures applied on Syria by the West, in particular the United States?
AB: These pressures are not designed to meet the interests of the Syrian people and instead work in favor of American and Israeli interests. Therefore we do not attach too much significance to these pressures. We work inside Syria and address the Syrian people directly. Moreover, we will never accept an Iraqi-style solution for Syria; in short we do not call for outside interference.
MA: What is your assessment of Syrian foreign policy?
AB: Syrian policy in Lebanon created a lot of problems, for instance keeping Emile Lahoud in power against the will of the Lebanese people is a very foolish move. More broadly the regime’s desire to please the United States at the expense of Syria’s relationship with Europe is an unwise move.
MA: Would you have liked for Syria to prolong its military presence in Lebanon?
AB: Of course not, especially because the Syrian regime repressed the Lebanese in the same manner that it has been repressing its own people for decades.
MA: How about Syria’s alliance with the Iranians and their support for Hezbollah?
AB: Syria has been exploiting Hezbollah for its own ends. They have used Hezbollah to consolidate their influence in the region.
MA: How would the Muslim Brotherhood manage Syria’s foreign policy?
AB: We would not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
MA: How about Israel?
AB: Israel is occupying Palestinian and Syrian lands and these should be returned. It would be preferable to secure their return through peaceful and political means.
MA: Would you adopt a tougher policy on Israel?
AB: Nowadays the Syrian regime does not react against any Israeli aggression. They support the Islamic resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, but why don’t they support resistance against the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights?
MA: Let us discuss terrorism and Iraq. Are you aware of any Syrian involvement in the top leadership of al-Qaeda?
AB: It is possible. Some individual Syrians may be involved in al-Qaeda.
MA: How powerful are the Salafis inside Syria?
AB: Their influence is limited. Salafism has weak foundations in Syria, as the majority of Sunni Muslims subscribe to Sufism.
MA: Has the invasion and occupation of Iraq strengthened the position of Salafis and other Islamic extremists?
AB: The American intervention in Iraq has radicalized people all over the region.
MA: Do you envisage the outbreak of violence inside Syria, similar to what occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s?
AB: The situation is very unstable and even the slightest provocation can have very serious consequences. The events in Qamishli should have been a wake up call for the Syrian authorities.
MA: There were some small bombings in Damascus last year and the government reflexively blamed Islamic militants, do you believe them?
AB: There has been a lot of speculation on those bombings, and to date the Syrian government has not produced any evidence to back up its claims. The regime would like to portray itself as a victim of terrorism in order to gain sympathy in the international community and convince certain countries that they are fighting terrorism. Moreover, the Syrian government has given some lists to the CIA, identifying alleged terrorists. Even the names of some members and leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood falsely appear on these lists. Both the Americans and the Syrians have acknowledged that they cooperate together in the intelligence and security field.
MA: How extensive is this cooperation?
AB: The Syrians give the Americans any information they need. Moreover, the Americans send Syrian captives to Syria for tough interrogations.
MA: Do you know Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (Abu Musab al-Suri)?
AB: Mustafa Setmariam was originally a member of Marwan Hadeed’s Fighting Vanguard, but he left that organization in 1981. Afterwards he traveled extensively, staying in Afghanistan, Spain and the UK.
MA: What more do you know about him?
AB: Mustafa Setmariam received his political and ideological training from Adnan Oqla and other Fighting Vanguard members. He was a highly extravagant individual. We don’t know much about his activities today, but it is clear that he has become a Takfiri icon.
MA: Is it true he is currently in Iraq?
AB: I have not had any verifiable information on him since 1981.
MA: Does Nasar have a lot of influence on the youth in Syria?
AB: The repression of the Ba’athist regime has created an environment conducive to the growth of these extreme ideologies and methodologies.
MA: What do you make of reports that foreign fighters are accessing Iraq through Syria?
AB: It is well known that initially the Syrian government wanted to keep the Americans under pressure in Iraq. But recently, especially after U.S. pressures, the Syrians have begun detaining mujahideen and tend to send them back to their countries.
MA: What is the situation right now; is the Syrian government complicit in the transit of fighters into Iraq?
AB: Many of the transit operations could not have taken place without the knowledge of Syrian intelligence.
MA: So the Syrian government is complicit in the transit of fighters?
AB: There is no doubt about that.
MA: But how do you explain the fact that on the one hand the Syrians give sensitive information to the Americans, and on the other create real difficulties for them in Iraq?
AB: Syria does not wish America to succeed in Iraq. But in order to ease the pressures they cooperate with them in this so-called war on terrorism.
MA: How extensive is the transit of fighters from Syria to Iraq?
AB: During the early months of the war the transfer was extensive. In that period even many Syrians left to fight in Iraq. Today if these individuals come back to Syria they are immediately detained. But I must stress we do not have accurate information on the extent of transit operations.
MA: What about reports that remnants of the former Iraqi regime are operating in Syria?
AB: A branch of the Iraqi Ba’ath was historically controlled by the Syrian government.
MA: I am not talking about the pro-Syrian left-wing of the Iraqi Ba’ath; I am referring to remnants of the regime that sought sanctuary in Syria following the fall of Baghdad.
AB: Saddam Hussein established good relations with the Syrians, 3 years before the fall of Baghdad. For instance they prevented the Syrian opposition in Baghdad from criticizing the Syrian regime too harshly. This 3 year period enabled both regimes to develop friendly relations, and the flight of remnants of the Saddam regime to Damascus must be seen in this context.
MA: What is the position of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood on the situation in Iraq?
AB: We believe that Iraq is an occupied country. The Americans invaded to serve their own interests, not to liberate the Iraqi people. The chaos prevailing in Iraq today is a direct consequence of the occupation. Resistance against occupation is the legal and moral right of all people. The Iraqi Islamic Party has adopted peaceful resistance, but others are fighting through different means.
MA: Do you think the empowerment of Iraqi Shi’as makes it less likely for Syrian Sunnis to overthrow the Alawi-based regime?
AB: No, I don’t think there are any direct relationships here.
MA: Do you think Syria could be invaded by the Americans?
AB: No, America will not repeat that experience in Syria.
MA: Now, let us discuss the Muslim Brotherhood and your own role in more detail. Firstly, is the Syrian government still terrorizing the opposition in the West?
AB: Yes, they focus particularly on the Islamic opposition.
MA: Have you been harassed by Syrian government agents here in London?
AB: They used to tell the British government that I have links to al-Qaeda, but of course the British do not believe their propaganda.
MA: What is your current position in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood?
AB: I am the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria (MB). I am responsible for all the global activities of the Syrian MB organization.
MA: What is the nature of your work here?
AB: I lead the political and media activities. More broadly I attend to any other pressing matter relating to the Syrian MB.
MA: Do you also directly supervise MB activities inside Syria?
AB: Law no. 49 in Syria authorizes the killing of anyone affiliated with the
MB, therefore we avoid an organizational presence.
MA: How do people inside the country maintain contact with the party?
AB: We only keep general contacts. One month ago a child of 14 was sentenced to death for alleged involvement with the MB after returning from exile, but his sentence was lowered to 6 years in prison.
MA: How extensive are your secret activities in the country?
AB: We have members inside Syria, but we avoid giving these activities any identifiable structure.
MA: How closely were you personally involved in the events of the late 1970s and early 1980s?
AB: I was the deputy leader at that time and I can tell you that the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood had no involvement in violent events whatsoever. Two influential people in particular reacted to Ba’athist repression in a violent manner; Adnan Oqla, who was dismissed from the MB five years before the outbreak of full scale violence and Ibrahim el-Youssef, who was an officer in the Syrian army and a Ba’athist with no relations to the MB whatsoever. The Syrian MB issued a statement condemning the massacre at the artillery school in Aleppo in 1979 committed by Oqla and el-Youssef. The authorities blamed the Brotherhood for the event simply because they wanted more excuses to deepen and intensify the repression.
MA: But what about al-Tali’a al-Muqatila [The Fighting Vanguard], were they not closely associated with the Syrian MB?
AB: Some groups affiliated to Marwan Hadeed adopted that name [Fighting Vanguard], but when the Brotherhood found out about their association, it expelled them from the party and canceled their membership. Most of the events that occurred in the late 1970s and 1980s, particularly events involving violence, were beyond the control of the Brotherhood. It was the Syrian people who rose up to defend Islam and the Brotherhood in the face of the aggressions of the Ba’ath regime. The conflict acquired a sectarian characteristic because most of the influential people in the Syrian regime came from the Alawite sect. This imbalanced sectarian representation in a diverse society inevitably created instability and frustration among the Sunni majority and led to a massive confrontation.
MA: Are you referring to the events of Hama in February 1982?
AB: Hama is a stronghold of Sunni Islam in Syria and well known for its resistance against French colonialism and it is not surprising that its people were the most frustrated under the circumstances. The MB leadership asked the Brothers not to fight in the city and to withdraw from the battle, but the military forces besieged the city and bombarded it for 3 weeks.
MA: Does the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood categorically reject violence?
AB: We have always rejected violence, and have a long history of participating in the political life of Syria, but the Baath regime created conditions under which no political party could engage in peaceful political activism. All documents of the party outline our peaceful approach.
MA: How do you explain the decline of the MB after the events in Hama?
AB: The regime destroyed three quarters of Hama, and repressed popular uprisings in other cities in a similar fashion. The brutality of the Syrian regime, and its willingness to use conventional military capabilities against its own civilian population, is unparalleled in modern history. They detained over 60,000 people in that period.
MA: So unprecedented repression was the only cause of the decline?
AB: After the coup d’etat in 1963 all political parties were harshly repressed in Syria, but the Brotherhood, because of its size and the serious threat it posed to the Ba’athists, received the harshest treatment. But in spite of this repression, in particular the massacres of the early 1980s we remain the largest opposition force.
MA: What has happened to the leaders of the struggle? I refer specifically to Adnan Saad al-Din, Said Hawa and Issam al-Attar.
AB: Sheikh Said Hawa died more than 15 years ago. Issam al-Attar has been leading the Talaa’i organization in Germany since the late 1970s. Our relationship is very good and we meet regularly. Attar leads a loose organization that works mainly with non-Syrian Muslims; hence Attar is no longer exclusively engaged with Syria. But the aims and objectives of his organization are very similar to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. We coordinate and consult closely on Syria-related issues. As for Adnan Saad al-Din, he left the Muslim Brotherhood in 1986 and formed a breakaway faction. This breakaway faction rejoined the main body of the MB in 1991, but Saad al-Din never again returned to the party. But we still maintain a good relationship.
READ INTERVIEW
posted by Joshua Landis @ 8/16/2005 12:51:00 AM
67 comments
links to this post
67 Comments:
One comment to start with:
Hafez Assad started to build 100s or 1000s of mosques exactly since he assumed power in 1970, and not from the 80s. He was seen at first as the "saviour" of the right wing Islamists against the Left of the Baath, and was thought of as less harmful to them than the Atassi wing, so he aligned himself with them and they received him warmly at first thinking they could kick him out fast afterward.
Islamists had no chance in Syria had it not been for the use of sectarianism that both Assadists and MBs exploited to the max. The MBs thought they had a chnace of increasing in numbers by pointing out to the general population of an Alawi plot ..etc.. However, traditionally they were much inferior to the secular voices in syria by large.
Syria had a viable Parliament for decade after independence. The Moslem Brotherhood never gained sizable constituent under such a Democratic system in Syria. It gained strength and notoriety only after the Baathist took over power by military coup and imposed this face façade of Arab Nationalism, Socialism and enmity to Israel.
The Alawaite controlled the Baath with the help of the lower classes. Baathist managed to cease power and hold on to it for as long as the cold war was going on. Israel, and Baathism put up a good show of enmity all awhile made secret deals. The Baathist used Israel as a mean to focus the attention of the people to problem outside Syria and as long as they maintained this enmity toward Israel they gained popular Arab support, which they needed since no local support is available.
It was well crafted game plan, all the scummy nations played it along. Too bad for the Baathist this game now is unraveled and they can’t come up with a new one.
One consideration should be taken: the Moslem Brotherhood is the key opposition one needs to coalition with if a serious challenge to the Baathist is to be mounted. Not because they are popular in Syria or can bring the voters to the pole, but because any serious challenge to the Assads would require a military action. The Moslem Brotherhood, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and some Palestinian groups are the only one capable and have trained for such military action. Whenever these groups need
Josh, a question, how do we log on to see the continuation of the articles ?
You cannot extrapolate from the situation 50 years ago. It was the same case for Egypt because of the heavy western influence at the time. Religious practice is stronger today, and islamists would probably win an election.
You are obviously not Syrian or have little knowledge of the Syrians. They will win now that the Baath is in power and MB is the only opposition capable of armed confrontation. All the others are just talkers. The regime does not fear talkers, the people know that too.
If the Baath party is out, the urge to vote for MB is much less than even before. Rise in Islam popularity is directly related to the existence of the regime, a sign of despair.
The rise of Islam popularity is seen by the Syrian Republican Party, as a powerful strategic force that eventually the world will be faced with and be forced to deal with it, counter act to it, by providing the support needed to other opposition groups like ours.
So far the U.S. and the world arrogantly and mistakenly think they will just defeat the beast. It Aint gonna happen. Intelligence reports portray a grim picture for the next 2 years, even worse as time goes by and nothing is done to address the inequity prevailing.
Many opposition groups will soon be calling on Moslem Brotherhood rather than the U.S. or Europe for help. So in fact, the U.S. and Europe will have conducted a strategy of shooting ones foot by not providing the necessary support to secular oppositions.
With all the noise about MBs that the regime and its supporters abroad are making, the regime has been releasing MB Prisonners since 2001 and jailing Secularists starting with what was called "the Damscus Spring" leaders, and ending with AlAtassi forum, and today, and continues to do so every day.
A regime that is so scared of MBs would at least encourage those who want a Secular Syria, not torture them. It is evident that the regime is more afraid of the Secularists than the Muslim Brotherhood, but it is using the name of the MBs to gain International recognition, and as a propagnada tools to face the Minorities in Syria with.
Josep Ali Mohammed
Excellent observation J.A.M.
Assad and the Baathists are by far more intelligent than the dumb shits that are running the policy in America and Europe. They know that strengthening the very same religious group the West is trying to control is a win-win situation.
They know the West abandoned the seculars and gave up on organizing them and so Assad too gave them the shaft, on the other hand strengthened his position with the Islamist against America primarily.
It is all about control of resources, money and offshore bank accounts. What a tragedy for all those that are loosing loved one on all sides. Two years past and nothing to show for except a growing list of casualty. By the time Bush is out of office, the numbers could well be near that of Vietnam if you counted all the casualties and not just those who died in action as Dr. Mengele Rumsfeld officially reports.
30% of israel's population is non-Jewish and they have more rights than any Arab or Muslim in one of the 57 countries.
Anyways, this or that government, its all the same, anybody is a kind of Immam and in any arab man is ruling a despot.
Why you have that big mouth here? Why do you not go to your holy motherland and leave the west as soon as possible?
Who refuse western lifestyle, western societies, laws, humanrights, doesnt deserve to live with us in our civilisation.
Deport them - all of them. Let them pound sand in a Middle Eastern weed patch. If they give us any more trouble, convert the weed patch into a rustic glass factory. People in the west are tired from all this dirty games.
Shut your mouthes, go home, look for your caliphat.
WE don't want "Islamic values"-
None, nada, zilch, niente, basta!
John USA
Stupid people deserve stupid government.
The Syrian people are jealous of each other. That is all. Their jealousy is manifested when there is no other reason, by the secatarian outbursts. It is a factor both sides Alawis and Sunis, and even Christians use against each other and to get support for their petty talks behind the back of the other. Syrians are low level people, even when they are outside. I would say it is the trait of all the Arabs, not only Syirans. Those who are jealous of the others wish to do so with extreme cruelty. Arabs who get the chance to open businesses, and employee other Arabs, exploit them in ways that I can never find comparables to them within any other race.
Stupid Arabs deserve nothing but what they have gotten and whatever they will get in the future.
St0ck For Your Review - FCPG
Current Profile
Faceprint Global Solutions (FCPG)
Current Price $0.15
A U.S. based-company dedicated to the goal of
bringing effective security solutions to the marketplace.
With violent and white-collar terrorism on the rise,
companies are starving for innovative security solutions.
FCPG is set to bring hot new security solutions to
the industry, with currently over 40 governmental and
non-governmental contracts, being negotiated.
Please Review Exactly What this Company Does.
Why consider Faceprint Global Solutions (FCPG)?
Faceprint Global Solutions (FCPG) holds the exclusive
marketing rights from Keyvelop, to sell the world�s
leading encryption technology to be distributed directly
to the Healthcare industry in North America.
Faceprint Global Solutions has completed its biometric
software that recognizes facial features of individuals
entering and leaving through airports, ship yards, banks,
large buildings, etc.
FCPG acquired Montreal-based Apometrix Technologies,
which enhances the companies mission of being a
full-service provider to the multi-application smart
card industry. The North American market appears ready
for significant expansion of price-competitive, proven,
multi-application solutions on smart cards. Apometrix's
forecast of over 300 customers and sales of more than $50
million in North America over the next five years, appears
very realistic, according to company management.
Faceprint Global Solutions is currently in contract negotiations
with over 40 governmental agencies and businesses seeking to use
their encryption, biometric, and smart-card technologies.
Breaking News for Faceprint Global Solutions (FCPG)
Faceprint Global Solutions (FCPG) is pleased to announce that
IBM will now offer the world�s leading encryption software to
its major Healthcare clients in North America.
With FCPG owning the exclusive North American rights to distribute
the worlds leading encryption and transmission software developed by
Keyvelop, FCPG is poised to capture large volumes of sales generated
by customers currently using IBM�s software in the healthcare and other industries.
�This is a very positive move for FCPG and for Keyvelop,� said FCPG
CEO Pierre Cote. �We are very happy about the decision to go with IBM.
This is a continuation of the progress made by everyone associated
with FCPG and its partners.�
Buell Duncan, IBM's general manager of ISV & Developer Relations commented,
�Collaborating with Keyvelop will ensure that we develop open solutions
that are easy to maintain and cost effective for our customers in the
healthcare and life sciences industry.�
Among other things, this new software technology which is currently
being used by a number of European healthcare companies, is used to
send any file, regardless of format or size. Encryption keys, evidence
of transmission integrity with fingerprint calculation, time-stamping
of all actions and status record updating, pre-checking sender and
receiver identities, validating file opening dates are part of Keyvelop features.
About FacePrint Global Solutions, Inc.
FCPG operates a business, which develops and delivers a variety of
technology solutions, including biometric software applications on
smart cards and other support mediums (apometric solutions). FCPG�s
products provide biometric solutions for identity authentication and a
host of smart card- and biometrics-related hardware peripherals and
software applications. Apometrix, FCPG�s wholly-owned subsidiary, combines
on-card or in-chip multi-application management solutions with best-of-breed
�in-card matching� biometrics. Keyvelop�s secure digital envelope solution
and Apometrix�s on-card biometrics work together to produce the winning
combination in the fields of security, traceability and identity management.
Conclusion:
The examples above show the Awesome, Earning Potential of little known
Companies That Explode onto Investor�s Radar Screens. This sto,ck will
not be a Secret for long. Then You May Feel the Desire to Act Right Now!
And Please Watch This One Trade!
GO FCPG!
Disclaimer:
Information within this email contains "forwardlooking statements" within
the meaning of Section 27Aof the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve
discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs,
plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or
performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward
looking statements". "Forward |ooking statements" are based on
expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made
that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual
results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated.
We were paid a sum of three thousand USD to disseminate this information from
ir marketing. Forward loking statements in this action may be identified through
the use of words such as "projects", "foresee", "expects", "will", "anticipates",
"estimates", "believes", "understands" or that by statements indicating
certain actions "may", "could", or "might" occur. Risk factors include
general economic and business conditions, the ability to acquire and develop
specific projects, the ability to fund operations and changes in consumer
and business consumption habits and other factors overwhich the company has
little or no control. The publisher of this newsletter does not represent
that the information contained herein are true and correct.
John:
Enough of non sense!
We will do if you will do same.
Do you undderstand the equation?
Is it really what you want? I doubt it, but may be you are now aware of what is going on in the world!
Islamists are the West's creation anyway. Still President George W. Bush treats the so called king of Saudi Arabia differently from treating any one on Earth. Now, do you know why the West wants these retarded to stay in power and create more retarded than them, Islamists or may be something else later on?
It is the sad fact, dear John. Islamists are your creation, and we are fed up of them, and want them out of our land as well. Permit us to do so, and stop intervening!
Do you understand>?
well I am a Lebanese but I do have family in Syria and they favour gradual reforms followed by democracy rather than immediate elections. But it doesn't look that the current regime is willing to seriously reform Syria. I really don't know the solution (emigration?). I wouldn't care if it was in Zimbabwe but as a Lebanese, this regime is as much a problem for me than for you.
On 5 August 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced his intention to ban a number of Islamist groups, amongst them Hizb ut-Tahrir.
HT are an organisation founded in Palestine in 1951 by Sheikh Taqi-ud-deen Al-Nabahani who believed that the poor state of Muslims worldwide (the Ummah) was due to the destruction of the Caliphate in 1924 (a trans-national Islamic state, ruled by Shariah law). Sheikh Nabahani set up groups throughout the Middle East that aimed to teach and call for the re-establishment of the Caliphate (or Khilafah). Through the 1960’s and 70’s, the group spread to all corners of the Muslim world, although many Muslim countries subsequently banned the organisation, believing it to be dangerous. In their statements to the media, HT members and spokespersons have always claimed the group believes in non-violence. However, when you actually read their literature, things look very different.
The purpose of an Islamic state
We can begin by examining the core aim of HT, namely the re-establishment of an Islamic state, the Caliphate, uniting all Muslims and governed by Islamic law. HT are clear that the aim of the Caliphate is not simply uniting Muslims, the ultimate aim is domination:
Islam demands that we are leaders in science; we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically.
[Source]
All the world is to become Muslim, with those who are non-Muslims forced to pay the jizya poll tax as a sign of submission to the Caliphate as mandated by the Qur’an (Q. 9:29):
In short this meant that Rasool-Allah [Muhammad] was to carry Islam to them, and implement its laws over them until they acknowledged the authority of the public laws of Islam within the state. An outward manifestation of this acceptance was to be the concept of a nominal, token tax know as Jizya. This was to be levied on non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state ... The reason I make a point of using the past tense is because it is a duty that we, as an Ummah, are not presently executing.
[Source]
How is the Caliphate to be established?
This is critically important and lies at the heart of the question as to whether HT are non-violent lobbyists or dangerous Islamist radicals. Do HT envisage the Caliphate being set up by negotiation, politics and persuasion? The simple answer is no, for HT the answer is jihad, fighting in the way of Islam:
Jihaad is carried offensively to cleanse the earth from the kufr [unbelievers], with the implementation of Islam as a system thus liberating man from the rule of man.
[SOURCE]
The importance of jihad
Since jihad is so central a concept to the establishment of the Caliphate, HT are very concerned to correct what they see as wrong interpretations or understandings of the word. They are angry that people are trying to play down the violent aspects of jihad:
The West fears the meaning of Jihad for no reason other than the fact that this word is an explanation of what makes Islam a force in the world. So, it should not surprise anyone that the West will try its utmost to distort the meaning of Jihad from the minds of the Muslims ... The styles vary, whether it is from Tony Blair who says, “Islam is a religion of Peace”, or whether it comes from his followers in the Muslim Council of Britain who argue that “Jihad is only about struggling against our desires.”
[SOURCE]
Indeed, HT are clear that jihad is all about killing non-believers:
There are over 120 verses of the Qur’an that use the Shari’ meaning of Jihad to mean fighting and killing.
Not equal are those Believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons, Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight.” (Q.4:95)
It has been agreed upon by the classical scholars that the Shari'ah meaning of Jihad is to fight and kill the kuffar [unbeliever].
[SOURCE]
Nor is jihad merely to be used in self-defense:
Moreover some will say that Jihad was only defensive; this is incorrect. A quick study of the Life of the Prophet (SalAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) shows us something different ... [historically, Muslims] instigated Jihad, through As-Sham, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and North Africa.
[SOURCE]
Jihad is not optional for Muslims but is fard (obligatory); notice, too, in the quote below, HT’s desire for Muslims to recapture Spain which was part of the Muslim empire established in the Islamic colonial period of 632-732.
O Muslims, O people of the Kanaana (quiver): You have to know that Allah (swt) has made Jihaad Fard on you to liberate the whole of Palestine from the filth of the Jews. Just as Islam has made it Fard on you and all the Muslims to liberate Andalus (Spain), Chechnya and the rest of the Muslim lands usurped by the Kuffar from the Muslims. This Jihaad will continue until the Day of Judgement.
[SOURCE]
Any Arab leader who tries to prevent jihad should also be overthrown:
Remove from your path any ruler who befriends the Kuffar, rules by Kufr and prevents Jihaad.
[SOURCE]
This kind of language helps us to see why countries like Egypt, for example, have banned HT.
In short, this Islamist jihadi ideology lies behind HT’s call to all Muslims to take up arms and fight to bring about the Caliphate:
O Muslims! Hizb ut-Tahrir calls upon you to mobilise your forces and rally your ranks to help and support it in its work to establish the Khilafah state, by which you will restore your glory, attain the good pleasure of your lord and destroy your enemy … the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, namely America, Britain, Jews and their allies.
[SOURCE]
The Jews are to blame
Like most Islamist groups, HT have to deal with the realities of the fact that the Caliphate does not exist, nor does it look like it will sometime soon. Who is to blame for this? The answer, as it always is for Islamists, is the Jews. They are to blame for all the problems of the Muslims. The language used by HT to describe the Jews is quite extreme:
The Jews are clearly a cowardly people who hate death and fighting, whereas the Muslims love death and are eager to die fighting Jihad.
[SOURCE]
The Jews are sub-human, since they are:
… the brethren of monkeys and pigs …
[SOURCE]
Does HT believe in a two-state solution in Palestine? By now, you can probably guess the answer:
Muslims must not simply be content with not normalising relations with the Jews, or even with rejecting normalisation with them, rather they are obliged to fight the usurping Jews wherever they are found until they expel them from the land of the Muslims ... So that you may: kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. (Q. 2:191)
[SOURCE]
Truly, all military and non-military actions aimed at striking the usurping Jews in Palestine are legitimate. Allah (swt) has legitimised these actions in His glorious book. He (swt) says And kill them wherever you may find them and expel them from wherever they expelled you ... (Q. 2:191)
[SOURCE]
HT clearly have “martyrdom operations” in mind when they advocate an any-means-necessary approach to destroying Israel once and for all; elsewhere they explain the delights and rewards awaiting the successful martyr:
Rewards given to the shaheed are immense. They include:
Their souls are in green birds dwelling in Jannah wherever they like.
All their sins and faults are forgiven except debt.
He can intercede for 70 of his family members.
Be secure on the day of resurrection from the great terror.
He will not feel the agonies and stress of death.
He will not be horrified by the great gathering on the day (of accountability – Yawm al-Qiyamah).
He does not feel the pain of his killing except like a pinch.
[SOURCE]
All in all, the Jews are entirely corrupt:
The Jews are a people of slander. They are a treacherous people who violate oaths and covenants. They lie and change words from their right places. They take the rights of people unjustly, and kill the Prophets and the innocent. They are the most severe in their hatred for those who believe.
[SOURCE]
(As an aside, the alleged quote by Ariel Sharon on this page, speaking of burning every Palestinian child, is a well-documented hoax. Are HT are ignorant of this, or have they simply decided to add slander to incitement?)
Where does this leave the MCB?
We have seen, then, that HT at a macro desire an Islamic state that is world encompassing, to which non-Muslims will be subjugated. HT call for violent jihad to bring about this state, a jihad in which all Muslims are obliged to fight. At the micro level, the Jews must be defeated, since they are sub-human wretches about whom there is nothing good. HT regularly cite Qur’an verses that they believe call for Jews to be fought and killed.
Where does all this leave Iqbal Sacranie’s claim that HT do not incite violence or hatred? In short, it looks as foolish as the MCB’s press release that described HT as non-violent. But are the MCB merely incompetent, or guilty of deliberate deceit? Much as I would like to be able to believe that the MCB naively knew nothing of HT’s writings, there are some other factors that raise our suspicions:
The MCB have regularly critcised any attempts to divide the Muslim community into “moderates” and “radicals”. In short, the MCB see one big, happy Muslim family.
They have also gone further, defending radical Islamists from attacks by critical journalists.
The MCB are themselves in favour of the Caliphate, however much they claim to disagree with HT’s methods of establishing it. Here are three citations from The Quest for Sanity, the book the MCB brought out in 2002 as a response to 9/11:
With several ‘independent’ Muslim states, Muslims are now even weaker, because their Muslim identity has been superseded by nationalistic or other divisive entities.
(p. 177)
[The Armenian] genocide was committed by the secularists who brought about an end to the Islamic Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire, and were thus not acting in the name of Islam.
(p228)
And what is the alternative civilization for the whole of humankind, a civilization that embraces everyone, a civilization that will oppose the present civilization? … That was the civilization that lit the skies more than 1400 years ago.
(p.110-11)
Furthermore, there are reports that Iqbal Sacranie and Inayat Bunglawala, the MCB's media spokesman, have both said that they admire Maulana Maududi (1903-79). Maududi argued for the recreation of the Caliphate and established the radical Jamaat-i-Islami party, which aimed to set-up an Islamic state in Pakistan.
Is it therefore possible that the MCB believe that a broad spectrum of Muslim groups are needed to bring about the Caliphate and other such goals? That their approach to HT is thus to publicly distance themselves from them, yet avoid condemning them because their aims are actually seen as perfectly reasonable?
A final thought on freedom of speech
The MCB appealed to democracy and, implicitly, freedom of speech when it cricitised Tony Blair’s suggestion of banning HT. Yet this is the same MCB that wants to see laws brought in against incitement to religious hatred. Is it only incitement to hatred when Muslims are on the receiving end, or are all peoples — even the Jews and the unbelievers — worthy of protection and the enjoyment of full human rights? The MCB are, as is so often the case, guilty of a tremendous double-standard.
This is the future for all Arabs.
Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans
Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi on Febuary 23, 1998
Statement signed by Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh
Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders." The Arabian Peninsula has never--since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas--been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies now spreading in it like locusts, consuming its riches and destroying its plantations. All this is happening at a time when nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.
The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.
The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."
On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."
This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Almighty God said "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."
Almighty God also says "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things."
Almighty God also says "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."
This is a war, a global war, whether we like it or not. Islamicism versus Western Civilization. Islam sees itself as God's Perfect Religion, which can tolerate no rival to its desired rule of the entire planet. Our notion of civilization, Western Civilization, all the ideas we have inherited from our ancestors, from the Greeks and Romans of ancient times, is Islam's greatest rival and enemy. We are in a war for the highest stakes possible.
Islam and Sharia (Islamic Law) is completely hostile to everything we hold dear in the west. Sharia does not tolerate or accept music, most representational art, democracy, human and women's rights, homosexuality, and freedoms of every kind (including but not limited to freedom of thought, inquiry, religion, speech, and expression). Sharia is nothing less than tyranny, full stop.
A war cannot be won solely through defensive measures, such as strengthening airport security, or only with legal actions such as convening grand juries and issuing arrest warrants. At best, these are only part of the solution. A war can only be won by attacking on as many fronts as possible. Governments allied with the Jihadists (the Taliban, and the Iraqi Baathists) have to be at least marginalized, preferably eliminated if possible. Every economic, political, diplomatic, and military tool in our arsenal must be deployed in this fight.
This is a religious war. The terrorists understand it as such. Too many in the West do not.
Voices
Reporting by the International Herald Tribune*
"Politicians have indulged in corruption. Islamic parties are comprised of pious people, who follow the word of Allah. It is a good thing. People would believe a person who follows Islam more than a corrupt politician."
- The 48-year-old housewife of a Pakistani businessman
"[I]t's not Islam which is playing a bigger role in politics. Political parties, which preach Islam, are gaining political power. They use the umbrella of Islam... I believe Islamic extremism is dangerous to the country not because of bombs or terror attacks, but because it prevents the advent of technology and modernism."
- A primary school teacher in Lebanon
"Religion is playing a greater role in politics because of the globalization process. Globalization has made new values and new cultures that are starting to penetrate Indonesia. The changes are so quick and so drastic, that of course this creates problems. Many people cannot cope with this change, and to create certainty in their life they turn back to values they know, such as religious ones. It's a defense mechanism, that is not exclusive to Muslim culture."
- The co-founder of a think tank in Jakarta
"Yes, a lot of people put religion in politics now, but I'm not sure why. I don't understand because I sell food and I don't care to learn about politics."
- A 55-year old vendor in Jakarta
"Extremism poses a danger to the communal sanity of Pakistan. I think we should let democracy rule and let everyone be happy. Where nobody pushes anyone around, no fundamentalists, no fanatics, whether religious or not."
- A 29-year-old television marketing consultant in Islamabad, Pakistan
"When Pakistanis say they want a greater role for Islam they usually mean they want greater morality. There is no evidence that Pakistanis support the perspective of Islamist parties who managed to get only 11 percent of the popular vote in the 2002 parliamentary elections..."
- A Pakistani professor and author now teaching in Boston
"There is no such thing as violence against civilians in defense of Islam. The wording is misleading. What is happening in Iraq, the UK, in the US is not violence against civilians in defense of Islam. It is resistance against occupation."
- A 31-year-old bank employee in Lebanon
The comment section is a disgrace. thanks to people like John
John:
You are a disgrace. Permit me to say so, for you do not discuss, but copy and paste. Intellectualism is what you are asking Islamists to have through your copied/pasted material and which they do not possess because they too "copy and paste" from their Quran and what their "profit" said. This is what a dogmatic person does. He/she closes their ears and starts to recite what the Quran , or in your case, some Internet site or what an author said.
Listen. There was an argument to face you with in this thread, but you did not answer it. Instead you blindly continued to present your hatred that is dogmatic to the core, doing exactly what the ones you are discrediting exactly do.
Please, stick to the subject. It is true, in Modern Arab world, up until the late 50s, Islam was a moderate thing, and Arabs, especially in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq wanted religion as a moral conduit only, and religious people had much less influence in the political life than what they have today. This did not happen in a vacuum. The US backing the retarded Oil Sheikhs of the Arab world who stole 99% of oil wealth and deposited them in private accounts in Western Banks used religion to expand to keep their power, their fight against communism side by side with the CIA, and expanded Wahabism which is contrary to any civilized doctrine in all Muslim countries, exactly with the push and help of the USA. Now, it is a disease throughout the Muslim world, and the world, but it is primarily a disease that third world Islamic countries suffer from, all, thanks to the US past policies. Still, until today, we saw how George W Bush, a president I love and admire treats different dictators with different attidtudes, for example, he wants democracy in Iraq, or Syria, but supports the kingdom of darkness, that of Saudi Arabia with all the power he has.
So, a little of fairness, John!...Please!
Joseph
Joe,
I cant believe my eyes. Are you feeling feverish today? Since when do you defend Arabs/muslims and blame the west? Just last week you were cursing both. Hey i am not complaining but i couldnt help but wonder why the shift in the rhertoric? BTW i am not sure what you meant by calling John a disgrace but it was me who called him a that in the previous post it was not john signing that comment. But i am glad we agree on something finally :)
Criminal:
No, I am not defending Arabs or Muslims. I just do not agree with dogmatic persons who do not use their own arguments, but "Copy/Paste" to inflame others and destroy discussions. Muslims do the same. Whenever they discuss, they have to bring verses from their Curan, or what the "profit" said, and insult you as filthy non believer. John is doing the same thing from the other side, but it is the same thing.
Joseph
Islamists have killed thousands of Westerners over the past couple of years -- thousands in New York City alone. But they have killed far more of their own fellow Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, and too many other places to list. The Terror War, or whatever we ought to call it, is not about us. It's a war waged by totalitarian Islamists against the rest of the world. We aren't targets because of what we do or even because of who we are. We are targets because we are not them. They hate everybody and we're part of "everybody.
The New Yorker
We will have won the war when we see bikini's on the beaches outside Mecca (and sipping cocktails too!). I just hope to see the day.
The Christians in Lebanon always had problems with the Moslems, but we never thought our neighbors would turn on us. That situation was aggravated by the influx of the Palestinians coming from Jordan after King Hussein kicked them out in Black September. That's what tipped the scale in Lebanon. Not only had Moslems become the majority but they now also felt empowered by the presence of the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat wanting to attack the Christians, take over Lebanon and use it as a base from which to attack Israel. When the Moslems and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975 we didn't even know what that word meant. We had taken them into our country, allowed them to study side by side with us, in our schools and universities. We gave them jobs, shared with them our way of life. We didn't realize the depth of their hatred to us as infidels. They looked at us as the enemy not as neighbors, friends, employers and colleagues.
Brigitte Gabriel
Evil prevails when good people do nothing. With the spread of radical Islamic fundamentalism throughout the world, it is important for the people of the western world to know and understand what to expect and what to do about it.
We are faced with a war that has been declared on both Christians and Jews in America and the world. Citizens of the most powerful country on earth watched in horror on 9/11, 2001 as a handful of men brought the United States of America to its knees. Wall Street froze, the stock market tumbled, and national air traffic ground to a halt. The West faces a threat more menacing today than the past goals of communist world domination.
We are facing an enemy that uses children as human bombs, mothers as suicide bombers, and men driven by the glory of death and the promise of eternal sexual bliss in heaven. We are fighting an enemy that loves death more than we love life. I am a victim of the Lebanese civil war, which was the first front in the worldwide Jihad of militant Islam against the only Christian country in the Middle East. My family’s home was shelled and destroyed leaving me wounded. I lived underground in a bomb shelter from age 10 to 17 without electricity and very little food. I had to crawl under sniper bullets to a spring to fetch water for my elderly parents. I was betrayed by my country, rescued by my enemy Israel, the Jewish State that is under attack for its existence today.
911 changed most American lives forever, but it struck an especially sensitive chord with me. It reminded me that the entire world is threatened by the same radical Islamic theology that succeeded in annihilating the “infidels” in Lebanon. That’s why I created American Congress for Truth. ACT was formed in June 2002 to inform, inspire and motivate Jews and Christians throughout society in ways to act and fight for our western ways of life and the values we cherish. Our members include Jews, Arabs and Christians from all background both secular and religious, liberals and conservatives. People who have put their differences aside to combat both anti American and anti Israel propaganda masquerading as anti Imperialism and anti Zionism wherever it exists; in the western media, among the intellectual elite, and on American college Campuses.
So many times in history in the last 100 years, citizens have stood by and done nothing allowing evil to prevail. As America stood up against and defeated communism now it is time to stand up against the terror of religious bigotry and intolerance.
May God bless us all and our nation.
Brigitte Gabriel, US
Again, (Copy/paste). This was copied from: http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/
This is called spreading hatred. This is called propaganda, and has nothing to do with a civilized discussion.
Muslims too suffered at the hands of Christians and Jews throughout the world. This goes both ways.
What bothers me is those claiming to be Christians, for they practise the opposite of what Jesus Christ preached, I sense a great hatred coming out of their hearts when the heart should be filled with joy and love instead as Jesus Christ had instructed them to do. While he was crucified, he did not curse the ones who were crucifying him, but prayed for them. While Christians call for the destructions of those they perceive as their enemies.
So, enough bull shitting us, please.
You will see that I defended Christianity , the real one much more than you, "Brigitte" in my prior posts, but this is not an acceptable way to spread your hate ideology, and propaganda.
BTW: You are ugly if it is you (Brigitte) that has the site where you copied from. Ugly woman.
Joseph!
In addition, some in the West have speculated about the growing influence of Islam in Syria - as a religion and, perhaps, as a political force. A recent Washington Post article titled "Religious surge alarms secular Syrians" described several new religious trends in the country: young women are more likely to wear headscarves, privately-funded mosques are being built in Aleppo, and Muslim clerics are demanding an increased role in politics. In fact, Syrian Vice-President Abdel-Halim Khaddam, a Sunni, recently issued a statement urging citizens to act more in accordance with Muslim laws and traditions.
The Brotherhood's increasingly vocal criticism has also helped foster the impression it is a powerful opposition force. Following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, for example, the Brotherhood faxed a statement to the London-based Al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper calling for an investigation into the murder and lamenting the sharp deterioration of relations between Syria and the "Lebanese people," who could be heard "shouting in unison 'Syria, get out.'" The statement noted that "Hariri's death might be the straw that will break the camel's back as far as Syrian-Lebanese relations are concerned," and that "no one can absolve the Syrian leadership of guilt."
The Brotherhood's statements were noteworthy in that they appeared to represent a shift in their approach during the past years, where they focused on engagement with the regime. When Bashar Assad took office in 2000, for example, the Brotherhood took steps to reach out to the new president. In May 2001, the group prepared a "National Honor Pact," accepting the democratic process and, for the first time, recognizing the regime's legitimacy.
The move appeared to pay off: In 2004, senior Syrian officials, including Assad, met with leaders who had ties to the Brotherhood. As Muhammad Habash, a Syrian parliamentarian, put it: "The commonalities between the Islamic movements and [the] national movement are stronger than at any time before." The signs were so promising, in fact, that this newspaper ran an article in May 2004 titled "Damascus, Brotherhood set to reconcile?" In the end, however, the negotiations appeared to fizzle, bringing the two sides no closer together.
As background, the Brotherhood became an important player in Syrian domestic politics in the 1950s, eventually establishing itself as a strong opposition group against the regime. In response to the Brotherhood's growing power, the government banned it as a political party in 1958. Relations with the Syrian regime turned far worse in the late 1970s, when violent clashes became frequent. The last straw for the regime was when the Brotherhood attempted to assassinate President Hafez Assad in June 1980. The following month, the government passed a law, still in place today, making membership in the Brotherhood a capital offense. The confrontation came to a head in 1982 in Hama, where the regime, demonstrating the lengths to which it would go to eliminate the group, killed 5,000-10,000 people, including many Brotherhood members. After the massacre, many of the survivors left Syria and moved to Western Europe, particularly Spain and Germany.
The Brotherhood's recent actions appeared to illustrate not only its apparent strength but also the weakness of the Syrian regime. Indeed, there have been indications the regime is taking conciliatory measures toward the Brotherhood. For example, the authorities are said to be planning to return property they confiscated from Brotherhood members in the area of Hama in 1982.
Despite these developments, the Brotherhood, or any other Sunni Islamist group, would have great difficulty filling the vacuum if Assad's regime collapsed. The Brotherhood's strength appears to be overestimated, and it never fully recovered from its clashes with the regime. Indeed, after the regime crushed the group in 1982, it abandoned its strategy of direct confrontation. Although members continued to operate and meet in mosques - often under the auspices of moderate Sunni clerics - they did not resort to violence. In comparison to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Syrian Brotherhood has a far less educated membership, boasts a far less wealthy constituency (drawn primarily from the lower middle class), and poses a much less potent a political threat. Other Sunni Islamist groups in Syria are even less well equipped to assume control.
The Brotherhood's alleged connections to the global jihad, particularly to Al-Qaeda, are also most likely overblown. Although it is plausible that individual members have joined jihadist groups, this is not necessarily reflective of the views of the organization as a whole. By and large, members in Europe do not maintain close ties to the main organization in Syria. Moreover, the Brotherhood may realize that Western pressure on Assad will be helpful to their cause, making it unlikely to embrace anti-Western actions.
In addition, there are other forces in Syria working against a potential takeover by the Brotherhood or other Islamist groups. For example, Kamal Labwani, an opposition leader released from prison five months ago, emphasized that the opposition is fighting on two fronts, and that "the fight against the government has ... priority" over the fight "against the fundamentalists." Other obstacles include powerful Sunni merchants in Syria who have an interest in maintaining the status quo, a middle class which largely turned its back on the Brotherhood after the 1982 crackdown, and the lack of well-trained Sunnis in the military.
Any speculation on the prospects for a change of regime in Syria must, however, include the caveat that it is largely guesswork. Gauging the strength of Syrian Islamists is particularly difficult. The regime forbids research on the topic, and Brotherhood members are reluctant to speak with outsiders. That's why increased understanding of Islamist groups in Syria is vital before one can offer a definitive account of their strengths, weaknesses and ambitions. But that said, something has definitely changed in relations between the Brotherhood and the Syrian regime, and the months ahead will show how significant this is.
Stop copying from outside:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=823
This is awful. We are capable of going to the article that you wish for us to read.
How stupid must you be!
Joseph
I think that Brigitte, and buffpilot is none other than John. he/she even puts United States of America just like the link from John. And their posts happen to be just 30 minutes from each other and in some cases just one minute. Quite pathetic if you ask me. And I reiterate what Joe said and what I have said a million times before. Stop fucking pasting whole articles, just put the link you sad sack of shit. Thank you and god bless Butter Chicken
Oh, Brigitte!!! No wonder you are so full of hatred against Moslems. No muslim accpetd your face, or gave you a compliment? This must be why. Frankly, no human being with a good taste can dio that, but may be some Christians accpted you as a pet, for they spoil pets.
To>>>8/18/2005 11:23 AM, Innocent_Criminal:
Go and play with your dolls.
You all are so primitive, do you really believe I would discuss with Arabs?? Just see your low level......no comment....
John the american gentleman
John:
I have the impression that you are a deeply hurt Arab, pretending to be a Westerner. Insults such as the one you made reflects a real sick man. Find a good psychiatrist asap.
An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps
In the introduction, the Jordanian journalist writes, "I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future." What he then describes between pages 202 and 213 is a scenario, proof both of the terrorists' blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness. In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.
The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."
The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.
The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.
The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.
The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.
The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.
The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half billion Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.
"The Sixth Phase: Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of 'total confrontation.' As soon as the caliphate has been declared the 'Islamic army' it will instigate the 'fight between the believers and the non-believers' which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden."
In other words, people, World War III is in the making. Remember, you read it here first.
Now if only we can get some of our ostrich-playing brethren to pull their heads out of the sand...
"The Sixth Phase: Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of 'total confrontation.' As soon as the caliphate has been declared the 'Islamic army' it will instigate the 'fight between the believers and the non-believers' which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden."
In other words, people, World War III is in the making. Remember, you read it here first.
Now if only we can get some of our ostrich-playing brethren to pull their heads out of the sand...
It is time that Democracies throught the world united and shared their intelligence and prepared for all out war. If the Islamists want a global Caliphate they will have to fight for it.
We should arrange for nuclear strikes in the same manner as during to cold war. This time we should seek alliamces with Russia, China, India and all the other nuclear powers to target all of the Middle East and anywhere else who is not prepared to eradicate supporters of Islamofacism.
We should accept that we are facing a showdown with destiny and be prepared to wipe the Islamists from the face of the earth.
60 million people died in WW2.
The world got over it
We did what we had to do.
We should be prepared to go all out again. Take over the Arabian oil field. Impound all the Arab funds, and Stuff it to them good style before they can do it to us. The sooner the beter.
It won`t happen guys.
Because we are the good guys. We are so good, we prefer having our throats slit rather than do something bad, like admitting that not every religion is peace-loving.
I am on other lists, and I feel like banging my head into the wall. Nothing will wake up the intelligentsia. Nothing.
Time to study the Koran and get circumcised...
The Islamic world needs an Enlightenment, similar to what happened in the Western world in the 18th Century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
An Islamist threat is not unknown in Syria. Thousands of Islamists and innocent bystanders were massacred to stem an Islamist challenge to the state in 1982. The Muslim Brotherhood (or the Ikhwan) disclaimed a role in violent challenges to the state but in fact a radical militant branch of the Brothers, al-Tali`a al-Muqatila (The Fighting Vanguard) founded by Marwan Hadeed, engineered a crisis between the Syrian government and the Islamists. This group acted precipitously in its massacres of Ba’ath party members and their families, thus bringing down the regime’s fierce vengeance on all active Sunni Islamists. At that time, the Ikhwan who survived the onslaught fled the country or went underground, but Islamism rose again like a phoenix amongst Sunni Syrians despite their socialization and education in the Ba’ath values of freedom, socialism and Arab nationalism. The popularity of hijab and prayer groups was already widely apparent in the early 1990s. Islamism’s re-emergence has been credited to resentment of the Alawi elite and the Ba’ath Party’s secularism, the government’s own sponsorship of Islamic education, and some 585 religious institutions, as well as religious influence from the Persian Gulf region, and Syrian interest in Islamist alternatives elsewhere in the Arab world. [1]
Back in 2002, the Muslim Brotherhood convened a conference in London aiming at unification of the Syrian opposition. [2] But President Bashar al-Assad later publicly suggested that Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood had already returned to their homeland like prodigal sons, or might do so. [3] Such statements fall in line with certain characterizations of Bashar as a would-be reformer who lacks the power to dictate to those shadowy figures who allegedly control the country, and up until recently, much of Lebanon as well. Many of the 600 prisoners released in 2000 were Ikhwan members, another 113 were released in November of 2001, 112 in December of 2004, and some of the 55 prisoners set free on February 12, 2005 were also from the Party. Moderate cleric Mohammad Habash called for an end to Law No. 29 which makes membership in the Muslim Brotherhood a capital crime. [4] The Syrian government’s extension of the olive branch meant that it hoped to absorb its opposition, and stem the growth of radicalism from within the country.
However, it is not entirely clear whether the Syrian government is seriously interested in promoting democratization, let alone involving the Islamists in the political process. The late Lebanese writer, Samir Kassir, assassinated on June 2 by a car bomb, believed that only through Syria’s democratization would Lebanon achieve viable independence, and in addition to his organization of huge anti-Syrian protests in Lebanon, he was said to be encouraging a more viable Syrian opposition that included the Ikhwan. [5] The Ba’ath Party Congress convened just after his murder and the killing of a Syrian Kurdish leader. That Congress was disappointing as it only slightly amended emergency laws, and while allowing the legalization of some political parties, made it clear that the Ba’ath will remain the pre-eminent force.
What relationship does the re-emergence of the Ikhwan have with Syria’s alleged support or lack of oversight over fighters moving into Iraq to join the insurgency? First, a country and President that cannot control its own security operatives or political opponents is unlikely to be capable of political transformation. Secondly, wherever citizens support Islamism as a popular discourse and see the insurgency in Iraq to be a legitimate form of resistance, it may be more difficult to protect a porous border or contain the future role of Islamism. Further, the Syrian government may have shot itself in the foot by loudly announcing its non-aggression pact with Iran, or when President Bashar al-Asad claimed that “The armed operations against the American occupying forces in Iraq [are] a legitimate resistance because it represents the majority of the Iraqi people.” [6] Opponents of the Syrian government argue that Syria has long demonstrated a tolerance of terrorist organizations and aims at regional influence beyond its own natural capabilities. Therefore, the logic is that since Syria has supported groups like Hizbullah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and interfered in Lebanon’s sovereign politics, it is allowing jihadi activity from its territory into Iraq. This argument does not address support for the Iraqi insurgency from within Iraq, or from other porous avenues like the Saudi and Jordanian borders.
At first, U.S. analysts emphasized alleged Syrian complicity in the Iraqi insurgency through collusion with Iraqi Ba’athists who had fled there. The U.S. Treasury Department’s July 21 identification of four nephews of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein operating from Syria and funding the insurgency substantiates a part of this claim without explaining the Islamist component of the insurgency. On the other hand, Syria’s relationship to the situation in Iraq is complicated. Saddam Hussein was not beloved in Damascus, and Syria now hosts a huge number of refugees, many of whom are so poor that prostitution is burgeoning along with malnutrition. [7]
And then there is the Islamist strand of the insurgency in Iraq and the recent posting on Minbar Suriyya al-Islami (www.nnuu.org) which suggested that jihadists were trying to discourage the flow of inexperienced fighters into Syria. It is fairly certain that various routes for fighters supplying the Iraqi insurgency were established, and a recent jihadi website suggests a route through Aleppo, a Sunni urban center, that might be less avidly patrolled than Damascus. The material implies that jihadis will no doubt travel to Syria despite the website’s discouragement, but they should forget about entering Syria on an individual basis, exercise caution and subtlety in locating recruiters, and avoid the Internet. As for the question of whether Aleppo is buzzing with mujahideen, it was a center of Islamist activity years ago, though, perhaps no more so than the other large cities, Hama, Homs, and Damascus included.
Aleppine followers of Abu Qaqaa, a radical preacher, gathered in Aleppo and smugglers helped bring fighters over the Iraqi border at least until January of 2005, when a crackdown began. According to one former recruiter, the crackdown did not prevent his cell from sending a Saudi insurgent with plenty of cash over the border. Now, the question is whether officials possess sufficient knowledge of continuing support for the insurgency, or control over networking in Syria to bear responsibility. Or are their opponents still angry over other issues like the continuing operations of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Syria’s test launching of Scud missiles, a continuing intelligence presence in Lebanon and a purported “hit list” in that country? It is certainly possible to make a case, as critics of Syria do, that the sponsorship of international terrorism has long been a useful means for Syrians to magnify their country’s regional impact. While Syrian officials assert that their border with Iraq has been closed, other reports suggest crossings that lead down the Euphrates valley, or northwards toward Tal Afar and Mosul, remain open to the mujahideen. [8] However, given that the total strength of the Iraqi resistance stands at anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000, even if an estimated 150 fighters cross into Iraq each month, Syrians or those crossing in from Syria, are a fairly insignificant proportion of it.
Syria meanwhile argues that it has captured terrorists and recently two additional militants were detained after a skirmish on Mt. Qassioun which overlooks the city of Damascus. Events more pressing than any jihadi presence amounted to a Syrian-Lebanese border crisis. A gun battle outside the village of Qaa, arrests of alleged smugglers, detention of fishermen, and a blockade on the truck crossing at the Abboudiah-Dabbousiah northern crossing and at Masnaa have seriously disrupted truck transport. [9] The flow of arms, money, intelligence and goods from Lebanon into Syria has been of higher concern to Damascus, than U.S.- or Iraq-generated charges that Syria is not sufficiently discouraging Iraq-bound mujahideen. Foreign Minister, Faruq al-Shara commented that Syria would like “evidence” of the alleged cross-border activity and infiltration. Syrians continued to claim that there “was no” credible Iraqi evidence. Although al-Shara also announced that Syria wants to co-operate with Iraq and “open a new page,” his country is certainly more comfortable with a fractured and destabilized Iraq than with the loss of its control over events and actors in Lebanon.
The rise of political Islam in Syria can be traced to the 1940s, when a Muslim group called al-Gharra entered parliament, creating an Islamic Bloc to oppose the secular and civilian regime of President Shukri al-Quwatli. In 1944, its leaders presented a long list of demands that included installing special tramcars during rush hour to separate the sexes, shutting down all cabarets and casinos that served alcohol, arresting the owners of nightclubs, and the establishment of a moral police squad, similar to the one in Saudi Arabia, to be charged with patrolling streets and punishing transgressors of Islamic norms. In May 1944, al-Gharra violently protested against a charity ball held in Damascus, which wives of the ruling elite were planning to attend unveiled. Demonstrators took to the streets, carrying revolvers and knives, stoning cinemas that welcomed women and burning nightclubs. To win, the president decided to discredit the clerics in districts where they enjoyed most power; the poor neighborhoods of Damascus.
Quwatli got Adila Bayhum, head of the independent Women's Union, to temporarily cease the free distribution of milk to the city's poor. When mothers came to collect, they were politely turned away and told, "go to the shaykhs, let them give you milk." [1] Then, Quwatli cut off flour distribution in Midan, where the Islamists were popular, knowing perfectly well that nobody else could provide bread since the government controlled all flour rations in the wartime economy. [2] The clerics could not deliver, and overnight the demonstrations supporting the Islamic groups turned against them. This civilized and effective approach is what Syria needs today in order to curb the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, or any other emerging Islamic group.
Consecutive regimes, especially after 1963, did not pursue moderate approaches, however, and clashed with the Brotherhood twice, in 1964 and 1982. The Brotherhood considered the Ba’ath to be secular heretics, and the Ba’athists considered the Brotherhood leaders to be dangerous fanatics who needed to be rooted out from Syrian society. The Muslim Brothers were disturbed by the Ba’athist takeover of 1963 and began to drum up anti-Ba’athist sentiment in Syria’s urban interior. Secret cells of Islamic groups were formed to bring down the Ba’athist regime. In Aleppo, for example, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman Abu Ghuddah, an ally of pre-Ba’athist Syrian President Nazim al-Qudsi and former Mufti of Aleppo, created the Movement for Islamic Liberation. [3] Inflammatory speeches aroused the street, and pulpits were used to denounce the Ba’athist regime. By April 1964, rioting had developed into a religious war in the conservative city of Hama, where arms were used against the government. The prime agitator was Marwan Hadeed, a Muslim leader from Hama who claimed that the Ba’athists, alongside all secular people, were infidels who must be put to the sword. He created a street militia of Islamic extremists to strike at anyone related to the regime, called al-Tali’a al-Muqatila (The Fighting Vanguard). [4] It became unsafe for Ba’athists to walk the streets of Hama unguarded, since those who were caught were beaten, and in some cases killed, by the Islamists. The most famous assassination was that of Munzir al-Shimali, a young member of the Ba’ath National Guard, who was killed and mutilated in Hama. [5] This enraged the Ba’athists and Defense Minister Hamad Ubayd ordered the Syrian Army into Hama, bombarding districts of the city where the Brotherhood were located. Street fighting ensued, and the insurgents took up residence at the Sultan Mosque which was air raided under orders from President Amin al-Hafez. [6] In all, around 70 members of the Brotherhood were killed. Defeated, they put down their arms and ceased their militant activity for the next 15-years, when they re-emerged in 1979 to challenge the regime of President Hafez al-Asad.
A combination of factors triggered the Brotherhood to re-activate in the mid-1970s. First, they had recovered, physically, morally, and financially, from the defeat of 1964. Second, their outrage was at its peek when Asad went to war in Lebanon in 1976, supporting the Christians against the Palestinian guerillas of Yasser Arafat. Third, mass recruitment into the Ba’ath Party made it easy to infiltrate and work from within against the regime. Fourth, the Brotherhood had a strong monopoly over schools, thus enabling it to indoctrinate many children and young adults.
Islamic terrorism reached its peak in June 1979 when the Artillery School was attacked in Aleppo, resulting in the deaths of all its young Ba’athist cadets. Not all of the victims of the violence were Alawi Ba’athists; indeed even members of the Sunni Muslim clergy were targeted by the Brothers and their militant allies. The most prominent victim was Sheikh Mohammad al-Shami, who was slain at his mosque, on February 2, 1980.
Faced with a relentless Islamist onslaught, the Ba’ath regime struck back with remarkable ferocity. At the Ba’ath party’s Seventh Regional Congress (December 23-January 6, 1980), Rifaat al-Asad, the president’s brother, famously proclaimed that loyalty was a must: he who is not with the Ba’ath at this stage is against it. [7] On June 26, 1980, the Brothers tried to kill Asad in Damascus and in turn, he passed law 49 on July 8, which stipulated that membership in the Brotherhood was a capital offense, punishable by death. The fighting peaked on February 2-3, 1982 in Hama, where the Brothers took to the mosque pulpits and called for a “total war” against the Ba’athist regime. Authorities responded with force, giving the Syrian Army orders to crush the insurgency. The army responded positively, crushing the insurgency, and killing many thousands in the process. The defeat in Hama was a massive setback for the Brothers who disappeared from the Syrian political landscape for the rest of the 1980s.
To compensate for the losses it inflicted in 1982, the regime constructed hundreds of mosques throughout the country, and encouraged people to be pious but not fundamentalist and militant, as the Brotherhood had been. This eventually back-fired as “backdoor” sermons on political Islam started to surface once again in the early 1990s. Fiery and militant preachers took over numerous mosques, and banned books by the legendary jihadi ideologue, Said Qutb, were distributed widely.
The U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in March-April 2003, has played an important part in reviving Syrian militant Islam. While some Americans regularly accuse Syria of giving shelter to an assortment of Iraqi and foreign militants – ranging from Saddam Hussein loyalists to Takfiris – the Syrian authorities and the wider public have to contend with the very real twin threat of the revival of the Brotherhood and its many militant and Salafist offshoots. The official position of the Syrian government is that it cooperates with the Americans, if only to neutralize the militant threat inside Syria. True, Syria did turn a blind eye to the fighters who crossed the border to fight in Iraq in 2003, but it soon corrected this policy.
When the fighters were defeated or deported back to Syria, a combination of frustration, anger and despair overtook them. Unable to strike at the Americans in Iraq or the Israelis in Palestine, they unleashed their anger on their fellow Syrians. In addition to the Mezzeh attack of 2004, a group of terrorists were apprehended, after a shooting that caused panic among picnickers, in July 2005 on Mount Qassioun overlooking the Syrian capital. Earlier in the summer of 2005, Syria announced that it had arrested one man and killed another who had been planning an attack in Damascus on behalf of Jund al-Sham, a terrorist organization that has recently emerged in the country.
In order to defeat political Islam in the long-term, the Ba’ath regime continues to promote moderate Islam through regime-friendly clerics like the deputy Mohammad Habash, the Aleppo-based preacher Mohammad Kamil al-Husayni, and new Grand Mufti Ahmad Hassoun, who has announced that he is categorically opposed to political and militant Islam. One of these clerics, for example, has a sign on the gates of his mosque in Aleppo saying: “No to explosions!” There is some speculation that in the event of the sudden demise of the Ba’ath regime, the Brothers and their militant allies would quickly acquire ownership of the Syrian state. Certainly the events in neighboring Iraq since the invasion should be a wake up call for Washington. In Iraq, the U.S.-led invasion has ironically buried Iraqi secularism for good, thus surrendering control of the political landscape to Shi’a and Sunni Islamists
Living in Damascus, one gets the feeling that although overt religiosity is increasing, not all religious people are willing to support, let alone fight for the Islamists. Yet, the Islamic groups do represent a certain segment of Syrian society that cannot be ignored. Recently, some reconciliation steps have been taken by the government, including several amnesties which have set free over 1,000 members of the Brotherhood. In September 2001, Asad allowed the return of Abu Fateh al-Baynouni, the brother of the party’s leader, Ali Sadreddine. [8] But the regime has made it clear that a return to organized political activity, for either the Brotherhood or any other Islamic party, is a red-line that the Islamists would cross at their peril. The regime, however, would be committing a grave mistake by not giving the Islamic activists a platform to express their views (as decided by the Ba’ath Party Conference of June 2005). True, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood remains dangerous, but turning a blind eye to it will not make them go away, nor will it make them any less pernicious.
Syria is now a dictatorial atoll in a growing sea of democracy, surrounded by Israel, Turkey, and a soon-to-be-consensual Iraq. It may boast that Iraq will look like Lebanon of old; but it is just as likely that Syria itself, by historical processes beyond its control, will soon start to resemble a new Iraq. Demands for a peace settlement on the West Bank and the Golan Heights will inevitably involve the question of a Syrian-held Lebanon. Who knows — perhaps the Napoleon-spouting M. Villepin may introduce a U.N. measure to champion Lebanese sovereignty, a chance to extend France's historic concern with liberty to one of its former captive colonies?What will the theocracy do when Internet cafes, uncensored television and radio, and free papers spring up across the border in Iraq? How, after all, do you fight such a strangely off-the-wall culture as our own, which turns the villainous Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf into "Baghdad Bob," with his own website and a cult following, replete with T-shirts and coffee mugs — or prints out thousands of decks of playing cards decorated with the names and pictures of Iraqi fascists?
In the surreal world of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia talks of the need to banish Americans liberators from Iraq to ensure "democratic government" there. But it can do all of us a favor by first expelling Americans from Saudi holy soil, and then bringing some public transparency to the labyrinth of billions of dollars (800 and counting?) that has been sequestered in foreign banks by the royal family.
True, most of the Arab street may curse infidels in Baghdad, but a sizable minority will acknowledge the freedom there and ask, "If there, why not here?" Or: "Don't our own kleptocrats have lavish, glittery palaces of extortion just like Saddam did?" Nothing has been more pathetic in the last few days than listening to in-house Arab "intellectuals" damning the United States, ridiculing the "liberation" of Iraq, and railing at the old bogeyman of "colonialism" — even as they watch demonstrations and a freedom in Baghdad impossible in their own police states. What a burden they must carry: supporting the old Arab nationalist status quo ensures the continual absence of their own independence. Nothing is more fatal for an intellectual than complicity in his own censorship.
We do not need to, nor should we, attack or even threaten a criminal Syria with a force that we probably won't employ. Creating permanent change in Iraq and allowing the world to realign itself to new moral realities will soon enough squeeze Mr. Assad as never before. The future, you see, is on not his, but our, side. It is precisely because the last decade has seen American military power — against Noriega, bin Laden, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein — used for the promotion of human freedom and humanitarian values that our enemies are so exasperated and the neutrals so shrill.
December 05, 2003
A Real War
Fighting the worst fascists since Hitler.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Saddam's Baathists recently blew apart Japanese diplomats on their way to a meeting in Tikrit to discuss sending millions of dollars in aid to Iraq's poor. Their ghosts join those of U.N. officials who likewise were slain for their humanitarian efforts. On the West Bank, three Americans were killed: Their felony was trying to interview young Palestinians for Fulbright fellowships for study in the United States. In turn, their would-be rescuers were stoned by furious crowds — not unlike the throngs that chant for Saddam on al Jazeera as they seek to desecrate or loot the bodies of murdered Spanish and Italian peacekeepers in Iraq while the tape rolls. All this, I suppose, is what bin Laden calls a clash of civilizations.
Jews at places of worship are systematically being blown up from Turkey to Morocco — along with British consular officials murdered in Istanbul, American diplomats murdered in Jordan, and Western tourists, Christians, and local residents murdered by Muslims in Bali, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The new rule is that the more likely you are to help, give to, or worship in the Middle East, the more likely you are to be shot or blown up.
Most of the recent dead were noncombatants. All were either attempting to feed or aid Muslims, or simply wished to be left alone in peace. Their killers operate through the money and sanctuary of Middle East rogue regimes, the implicit support of thousands in the Muslim street, and the tacit neglect of even "moderate" states in the region — as long as the tally of killing is in the half-dozens or so, and not noticeable enough to threaten foreign investment or American aid, or to earn European disapproval.
But when the carnage is simply too much (too many Muslims killed as collateral damage or too many minutes on CNN), then suspects are miraculously arrested in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or in transit to Iran or Syria — but more often post facto and never with any exegesis about why killers who once could not be found now suddenly are. No wonder Pakistani intelligence officers, Palestinian security operatives, Syrian diplomats, and Iraqis working for the Coalition are all at times exposed as having abetted the terrorists.
Yet it hasn't been a good six months for the Islamists' public relations. Billions the world over are slowly coming to a consensus that the Islamists' killing has cast as a shadow over the Middle East — a deeply disturbed place, better left to stew in its own juices. Only its exports of oil, religious extremism, and terror — not its manufacturing, science, medicine, banking, tourism, humanitarianism, literature, research, or philanthropy — seem to earn global attention. This is all a great tragedy, but one that, after September 11, gives us no time for tears.
Remember, even apart from all the killing in Israel and Iraq, all of the deadly terrorism since 9/11 — the synagogue in Tunisia, French naval personnel in Pakistan, Americans in Karachi, Yemeni attacks on a French ship, the Bali bombing, the Kenyan attack on Israelis, the several deadly attacks on Russians in both Moscow and Chechnya, the assault on housing compounds in Saudi Arabia, the suicide car bombings in Morocco, the Marriott bombing in Indonesia, the mass murdering in Bombay, and the Turkish killing — has been perpetrated exclusively by Muslim fascists and directed at Westerners, Christians, Hindus, and Jews.
We can diagnose the cause of this new fascism's growth — which has very little to do with the old canard that racism, colonialism, and the CIA are to blame. Instead, corrupt thugs in the Middle East have for years looted state treasuries. They have imposed Soviet-style state autocracy on tribal societies. And they have stripped basic human rights from a skyrocketing population — one that has received just enough Western medicine and technology to ensure an explosive birth rate, but not enough to encourage the commensurate social, economic, and cultural reform that would prevent such growth from making life in a Baghdad or Cairo desolate.
The demise of the Soviet Union left a terrible legacy — one rarely acknowledged by our own Middle East specialists. Its Stalinist machinery was left in place to kill and torture in awful places like Libya, Iraq, and Syria — but without the coercive force of the Soviets to ensure that such deadly antics did not expand across borders to draw the Russians into unwanted confrontations with the United States. In turn, without Communists to worry about, so-called moderates in places like Egypt and Jordan — excepting, of course, the petrol states of the Gulf — had very little in common, or much leverage, with the United States.
So with the demise of the Cold War, these pathologies came to full maturity. Globalization enticed the appetites of the impoverished — as cell phones, the Internet, and videos, along with fast food and cheap imported goods, gave the patina of prosperity. In fact, internationalization only reminded 400 million that they could have the junk of the West, but without its freedom, material security, education, health care, and recreation. It is one thing to call a friend on a cell phone, and quite another to realize that one's society cannot make the phone, cannot fix it, cannot improve upon it, and cannot even use it as desired — and is reminded of these failures by the very fact of the imported device's daily use.
If the onset of democracy in India, Malaysia, and Indonesia suggested that Islam was not incompatible with consensual government, that hopeful message apparently did not catch on in much of the Middle East. Far from attempting to end the endemic problems of sexual apartheid, illiteracy, religious intolerance, polygamy, and everything from "honor" killings to state-sanctioned legal barbarism, most autocracies in the region allowed Islamic extremists and apologists to champion just such "differences" — as if the existence of such Dark Age protocols and endemic anti-Semitism were proof that the Arab world suffered none of the weakness and decadence of a soft West. Enough fools in the West were always around to nod rather than to challenge such Hitleresque romance — and even to invite such fascists from the Middle East to speak in Europe and the United States to the "oohs" and "ahs" of a few stupid and spoiled self-hating elites.
Into this vacuum stepped the Islamists — fed by Saudi money, blackmailing dictators as they saw fit, championing the poor and dispossessed who found their messages of hatred against the United States and Israel a salve for their own wounded pride and misery. It did not hurt that their enmity of the West was about the only topic of free expression allowed in censored state media.
In their defense, the mullahs in the madrassas at least realized that if it were left to corrupt tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Khadafi, and Assad to offer alternatives to the West, the Arab world would soon be caught up in the same liberalization that had swept Asia and parts of South America and Africa — to the chagrin of the patriarch, imam, and warlord, whose currency is deference received rather than freedom granted.
This strange new fascism explains why millions in the Middle East who in theory do not like a Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin laden still find consolation in the unrelenting opposition of these killers to the West. Kids whose parents were butchered by Saddam Hussein and are now fed and protected by American money and manpower nevertheless dance upon a burned out Humvee while shouting for Saddam to return. The same is true of those on the West Bank who have their capital looted by the Palestinian Authority, their relatives jailed or murdered, and their votes and speech curtailed: They will still praise Arafat to the skies — if he at least mutters some banality about hating the West. Because these are irrational responses — people acting from their appetites and impulses rather than their heads — we here in the United States, in our arrogant worship of our god Reason, with no confidence in or appreciation of our singular civilization, have gone about things pretty much all wrong.
Remember the worry about "getting the message out"? We all know the tiresome refrain: If the Arab world just knew about all the billions of dollars we give; all the Muslims we saved from the Balkans to Kuwait; all the censure we incurred to ease Orthodox Russians' treatment of Muslims in Chechnya, to stop Orthodox Serbian massacres of Albanians, or to discourage Chinese attacks on their own Muslim tribes; then surely millions of the ill-informed would reverse their opinion of us.
Sorry, the truth is just the opposite. The Arab street knows full well that we give billions to Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinians — and are probably baffled that we don't cut it out. They also know we have just as frequently fought Christians on their behalf as Muslims; they know — if their voting feet tell them anything — that no place is more tolerant of their religion or more open to immigration than the United States. Yes, Islamists all know that opening a mosque in Detroit is one thing, and opening a church in Saudi Arabia is quite another. Hitler wasn't interested in Wilson's 14 Points or how nicely Germans lived in the U.S. — he cared only that we "cowboys" would not or could not stop what he was up to.
No, the message, much less getting it out, is not the problem. It is rather the nature of America — our freewheeling, outspoken, prosperous, liberty-loving citizens extend equality to women, homosexuals, minorities, and almost anyone who comes to our shores, and thereby create desire and with it shame for that desire. Indeed, it is worse still than that: Precisely because we worry publicly that we are insensitive, our enemies scoff privately that we in fact are too sensitive — what we think is liberality and magnanimity they see as license and decadence. If we don't have confidence in who we are, why should they?
To arrest this dangerous trend requires a radical reappraisal of our entire relationship with the Middle East. A Radio Free Europe, though valuable, nevertheless did not free Eastern Europe; nor did Voice of America. Containment and deterrence did. As long as governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and many Gulf states encourage hatred of the United States, we must quietly consider them de facto little different from a Libya, Syria, or Iran. For all the glitter and imported Western graphics, al Jazeera and its epigones are not that much different from Radio Berlin of the 1930s.
We had also better reexamine entirely the way we use force in the Middle East. We did not drive on to Baghdad in 1991 out of concern for the "coalition" — and got 350,000 sorties in the no-fly zones in return. We chose to worry about rebuilding before the current war ended, and let thousands of Baathist killers fade away, and in the aftermath allowed mass looting and continual killing before our most recent get-tough policy.
In fact, anytime we have showed restraint — using battleship salvos and cruise missiles when our Marines were killed, our embassies blown up, and our diplomats murdered; allowing the killers on the Highway of Death to reach Basra in 1991; letting Saddam use his helicopters to gun down innocents — we have earned disdain, not admiration. In contrast, the hijackers chose not to take the top off the World Trade Center, but to incinerate the entire building — proof that they wished not to send us a message but to kill us all, and to kill us to the applause of millions, if the recent popularity of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen in the Arab street is any indication.
We had better rethink the entire notion of dealing with the mythical moderates within regimes like Iran and Syria. I am sure that they exist, as they existed in Saddam's Iraq. But we see the moderates now in Iraq and — with all due respect — they are not exactly the stuff of Ethan Allan, Paul Revere, or the Swamp Fox. In fact, in the Middle East, tens of thousands of democrats are more passive in their desire for freedom than are a few hundred fascists in their zeal for tyranny. We should accept that dissidents would never have toppled Saddam on their own — and are not quite sure what to do even in his absence. Victory alone, not stalemate or a bellum interruptum, will free the Arab people and extend to them the same opportunities now found in Eastern Europe.
In short, there is no reason for any American diplomat to have much to do in Teheran or Damascus — the haven of choice for many of the killers who bomb in Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. "Getting the message out" to a Syria is like traveling to Warsaw in 1950 to convince the government there how nicely Poles are treated in Chicago; sending peace feelers to Teheran is analogous to doing the same to Cuba in about 1962; discussing policy with Saudi Arabia is like talking to Gen. Franco about the perils of Mussolini or Hitler; incorporating Jordan in our resistance is like counting on a France circa 1940.
Peace and harmony will come, but only when the Middle East, not us, changes-which, tragically, will be brought along more quickly by deterrence and defiance than appeasement and dialogue. President Bush was terribly criticized for his exasperated "bring them on," but that was one of his most honest, heartfelt — and needed — ex tempore remarks of this entire conflict.
We are not in a war with a crook in Haiti. This is no Grenada or Panama — or even a Kosovo or Bosnia. No, we are in a worldwide struggle the likes of which we have not seen since World War II. The quicker we understand that awful truth, and take measures to defeat rather than ignore or appease our enemies, the quicker we will win. In a war such as this, the alternative to victory is not a brokered peace, but abject Western suicide and all that it entails — a revelation of which we saw on September 11.
Despite some disappointments about the postbellum reconstruction and the hysteria of our critics, our military is doing a wonderful job. We should understand that they have the capability to win this struggle in Iraq and elsewhere — but only if we at home accept that we have been all along in a terrible war against terrible enemies.
December 05, 2003
A Real War
Fighting the worst fascists since Hitler.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Saddam's Baathists recently blew apart Japanese diplomats on their way to a meeting in Tikrit to discuss sending millions of dollars in aid to Iraq's poor. Their ghosts join those of U.N. officials who likewise were slain for their humanitarian efforts. On the West Bank, three Americans were killed: Their felony was trying to interview young Palestinians for Fulbright fellowships for study in the United States. In turn, their would-be rescuers were stoned by furious crowds — not unlike the throngs that chant for Saddam on al Jazeera as they seek to desecrate or loot the bodies of murdered Spanish and Italian peacekeepers in Iraq while the tape rolls. All this, I suppose, is what bin Laden calls a clash of civilizations.
Jews at places of worship are systematically being blown up from Turkey to Morocco — along with British consular officials murdered in Istanbul, American diplomats murdered in Jordan, and Western tourists, Christians, and local residents murdered by Muslims in Bali, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The new rule is that the more likely you are to help, give to, or worship in the Middle East, the more likely you are to be shot or blown up.
Most of the recent dead were noncombatants. All were either attempting to feed or aid Muslims, or simply wished to be left alone in peace. Their killers operate through the money and sanctuary of Middle East rogue regimes, the implicit support of thousands in the Muslim street, and the tacit neglect of even "moderate" states in the region — as long as the tally of killing is in the half-dozens or so, and not noticeable enough to threaten foreign investment or American aid, or to earn European disapproval.
But when the carnage is simply too much (too many Muslims killed as collateral damage or too many minutes on CNN), then suspects are miraculously arrested in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or in transit to Iran or Syria — but more often post facto and never with any exegesis about why killers who once could not be found now suddenly are. No wonder Pakistani intelligence officers, Palestinian security operatives, Syrian diplomats, and Iraqis working for the Coalition are all at times exposed as having abetted the terrorists.
Yet it hasn't been a good six months for the Islamists' public relations. Billions the world over are slowly coming to a consensus that the Islamists' killing has cast as a shadow over the Middle East — a deeply disturbed place, better left to stew in its own juices. Only its exports of oil, religious extremism, and terror — not its manufacturing, science, medicine, banking, tourism, humanitarianism, literature, research, or philanthropy — seem to earn global attention. This is all a great tragedy, but one that, after September 11, gives us no time for tears.
Remember, even apart from all the killing in Israel and Iraq, all of the deadly terrorism since 9/11 — the synagogue in Tunisia, French naval personnel in Pakistan, Americans in Karachi, Yemeni attacks on a French ship, the Bali bombing, the Kenyan attack on Israelis, the several deadly attacks on Russians in both Moscow and Chechnya, the assault on housing compounds in Saudi Arabia, the suicide car bombings in Morocco, the Marriott bombing in Indonesia, the mass murdering in Bombay, and the Turkish killing — has been perpetrated exclusively by Muslim fascists and directed at Westerners, Christians, Hindus, and Jews.
We can diagnose the cause of this new fascism's growth — which has very little to do with the old canard that racism, colonialism, and the CIA are to blame. Instead, corrupt thugs in the Middle East have for years looted state treasuries. They have imposed Soviet-style state autocracy on tribal societies. And they have stripped basic human rights from a skyrocketing population — one that has received just enough Western medicine and technology to ensure an explosive birth rate, but not enough to encourage the commensurate social, economic, and cultural reform that would prevent such growth from making life in a Baghdad or Cairo desolate.
The demise of the Soviet Union left a terrible legacy — one rarely acknowledged by our own Middle East specialists. Its Stalinist machinery was left in place to kill and torture in awful places like Libya, Iraq, and Syria — but without the coercive force of the Soviets to ensure that such deadly antics did not expand across borders to draw the Russians into unwanted confrontations with the United States. In turn, without Communists to worry about, so-called moderates in places like Egypt and Jordan — excepting, of course, the petrol states of the Gulf — had very little in common, or much leverage, with the United States.
So with the demise of the Cold War, these pathologies came to full maturity. Globalization enticed the appetites of the impoverished — as cell phones, the Internet, and videos, along with fast food and cheap imported goods, gave the patina of prosperity. In fact, internationalization only reminded 400 million that they could have the junk of the West, but without its freedom, material security, education, health care, and recreation. It is one thing to call a friend on a cell phone, and quite another to realize that one's society cannot make the phone, cannot fix it, cannot improve upon it, and cannot even use it as desired — and is reminded of these failures by the very fact of the imported device's daily use.
If the onset of democracy in India, Malaysia, and Indonesia suggested that Islam was not incompatible with consensual government, that hopeful message apparently did not catch on in much of the Middle East. Far from attempting to end the endemic problems of sexual apartheid, illiteracy, religious intolerance, polygamy, and everything from "honor" killings to state-sanctioned legal barbarism, most autocracies in the region allowed Islamic extremists and apologists to champion just such "differences" — as if the existence of such Dark Age protocols and endemic anti-Semitism were proof that the Arab world suffered none of the weakness and decadence of a soft West. Enough fools in the West were always around to nod rather than to challenge such Hitleresque romance — and even to invite such fascists from the Middle East to speak in Europe and the United States to the "oohs" and "ahs" of a few stupid and spoiled self-hating elites.
Into this vacuum stepped the Islamists — fed by Saudi money, blackmailing dictators as they saw fit, championing the poor and dispossessed who found their messages of hatred against the United States and Israel a salve for their own wounded pride and misery. It did not hurt that their enmity of the West was about the only topic of free expression allowed in censored state media.
In their defense, the mullahs in the madrassas at least realized that if it were left to corrupt tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Khadafi, and Assad to offer alternatives to the West, the Arab world would soon be caught up in the same liberalization that had swept Asia and parts of South America and Africa — to the chagrin of the patriarch, imam, and warlord, whose currency is deference received rather than freedom granted.
This strange new fascism explains why millions in the Middle East who in theory do not like a Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin laden still find consolation in the unrelenting opposition of these killers to the West. Kids whose parents were butchered by Saddam Hussein and are now fed and protected by American money and manpower nevertheless dance upon a burned out Humvee while shouting for Saddam to return. The same is true of those on the West Bank who have their capital looted by the Palestinian Authority, their relatives jailed or murdered, and their votes and speech curtailed: They will still praise Arafat to the skies — if he at least mutters some banality about hating the West. Because these are irrational responses — people acting from their appetites and impulses rather than their heads — we here in the United States, in our arrogant worship of our god Reason, with no confidence in or appreciation of our singular civilization, have gone about things pretty much all wrong.
Remember the worry about "getting the message out"? We all know the tiresome refrain: If the Arab world just knew about all the billions of dollars we give; all the Muslims we saved from the Balkans to Kuwait; all the censure we incurred to ease Orthodox Russians' treatment of Muslims in Chechnya, to stop Orthodox Serbian massacres of Albanians, or to discourage Chinese attacks on their own Muslim tribes; then surely millions of the ill-informed would reverse their opinion of us.
Sorry, the truth is just the opposite. The Arab street knows full well that we give billions to Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinians — and are probably baffled that we don't cut it out. They also know we have just as frequently fought Christians on their behalf as Muslims; they know — if their voting feet tell them anything — that no place is more tolerant of their religion or more open to immigration than the United States. Yes, Islamists all know that opening a mosque in Detroit is one thing, and opening a church in Saudi Arabia is quite another. Hitler wasn't interested in Wilson's 14 Points or how nicely Germans lived in the U.S. — he cared only that we "cowboys" would not or could not stop what he was up to.
No, the message, much less getting it out, is not the problem. It is rather the nature of America — our freewheeling, outspoken, prosperous, liberty-loving citizens extend equality to women, homosexuals, minorities, and almost anyone who comes to our shores, and thereby create desire and with it shame for that desire. Indeed, it is worse still than that: Precisely because we worry publicly that we are insensitive, our enemies scoff privately that we in fact are too sensitive — what we think is liberality and magnanimity they see as license and decadence. If we don't have confidence in who we are, why should they?
To arrest this dangerous trend requires a radical reappraisal of our entire relationship with the Middle East. A Radio Free Europe, though valuable, nevertheless did not free Eastern Europe; nor did Voice of America. Containment and deterrence did. As long as governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and many Gulf states encourage hatred of the United States, we must quietly consider them de facto little different from a Libya, Syria, or Iran. For all the glitter and imported Western graphics, al Jazeera and its epigones are not that much different from Radio Berlin of the 1930s.
We had also better reexamine entirely the way we use force in the Middle East. We did not drive on to Baghdad in 1991 out of concern for the "coalition" — and got 350,000 sorties in the no-fly zones in return. We chose to worry about rebuilding before the current war ended, and let thousands of Baathist killers fade away, and in the aftermath allowed mass looting and continual killing before our most recent get-tough policy.
In fact, anytime we have showed restraint — using battleship salvos and cruise missiles when our Marines were killed, our embassies blown up, and our diplomats murdered; allowing the killers on the Highway of Death to reach Basra in 1991; letting Saddam use his helicopters to gun down innocents — we have earned disdain, not admiration. In contrast, the hijackers chose not to take the top off the World Trade Center, but to incinerate the entire building — proof that they wished not to send us a message but to kill us all, and to kill us to the applause of millions, if the recent popularity of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen in the Arab street is any indication.
We had better rethink the entire notion of dealing with the mythical moderates within regimes like Iran and Syria. I am sure that they exist, as they existed in Saddam's Iraq. But we see the moderates now in Iraq and — with all due respect — they are not exactly the stuff of Ethan Allan, Paul Revere, or the Swamp Fox. In fact, in the Middle East, tens of thousands of democrats are more passive in their desire for freedom than are a few hundred fascists in their zeal for tyranny. We should accept that dissidents would never have toppled Saddam on their own — and are not quite sure what to do even in his absence. Victory alone, not stalemate or a bellum interruptum, will free the Arab people and extend to them the same opportunities now found in Eastern Europe.
In short, there is no reason for any American diplomat to have much to do in Teheran or Damascus — the haven of choice for many of the killers who bomb in Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. "Getting the message out" to a Syria is like traveling to Warsaw in 1950 to convince the government there how nicely Poles are treated in Chicago; sending peace feelers to Teheran is analogous to doing the same to Cuba in about 1962; discussing policy with Saudi Arabia is like talking to Gen. Franco about the perils of Mussolini or Hitler; incorporating Jordan in our resistance is like counting on a France circa 1940.
Peace and harmony will come, but only when the Middle East, not us, changes-which, tragically, will be brought along more quickly by deterrence and defiance than appeasement and dialogue. President Bush was terribly criticized for his exasperated "bring them on," but that was one of his most honest, heartfelt — and needed — ex tempore remarks of this entire conflict.
We are not in a war with a crook in Haiti. This is no Grenada or Panama — or even a Kosovo or Bosnia. No, we are in a worldwide struggle the likes of which we have not seen since World War II. The quicker we understand that awful truth, and take measures to defeat rather than ignore or appease our enemies, the quicker we will win. In a war such as this, the alternative to victory is not a brokered peace, but abject Western suicide and all that it entails — a revelation of which we saw on September 11.
Despite some disappointments about the postbellum reconstruction and the hysteria of our critics, our military is doing a wonderful job. We should understand that they have the capability to win this struggle in Iraq and elsewhere — but only if we at home accept that we have been all along in a terrible war against terrible enemies.
Joseph ALi Mohammed
That is dirty, to post using my name.
Stupid people think they gain by such activities.
I leave this place to you, who ever you are. Enjoy it.
Joseph ALi Mohammed
censored
Joseph ALi Mohammed
If we are at war with Muslims & Islam, then why do we allow them to come to the West, practice their "religion", give them freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, access to generous benefits, housing, health care & welfare, allow them British Citizenship & Passports without "too many tough questions", fund their Islamic only Faith Schools, hold closed lists open only to Muslims in certain areas to stand for our Parliament, we fund the Islamic bookshops & youth centres that we also give charity "tax exempt" status, we let them state their hatred of us in no un-certain terms & when they send in "British born" suicide bombers we don't drive them into the North Sea.
Hey, we don't even insist that they speak the Queens English even when they have been here for 20-30 years.
Really, are we at war with Muslims & Islam? Have I missed something?
August 18, 2005 -- An NYPD Police Academy recruit of Middle Eastern heritage sports a bold tattoo spelling out the word "JIHAD" on his forearm, with a large sword drawn beneath it — and there's nothing the department can do about it, The Post has learned.
The extraordinary markings caused a stir around the academy as soon as the 6-foot tall probationary cop rolled up his sleeves and revealed the tattoo.
"People were shocked to see it," one source said.
The controversy prompted police brass to interview the officer, who said that "JIHAD" is his nickname and made it clear that he had no affinity for any terror causes.
In fact, "Jihad" has several meanings, ranging from "exerting utmost effort" and "to strive," to its more sinister usage by terrorist leaders who call for a "jihad," or holy war against the West.
Regardless of its interpretation, the NYPD, which has regulations for the length of an officer's hair, has no prohibitions against tattoos.
A department spokesman declined to confirm or deny that any recruit sported a JIHAD tattoo.
Sources say the officer, whose name was withheld, joined the NYPD's class of about 1,500 recruits less than a month ago.
He was described as quiet and studious.
Police brass advised the officer's classroom instructors that they are to ignore the tattoo. But its existence captured the attention of the department's Intelligence Division.
It's likely to ruffle the feathers of some cops, particularly since the NYPD lost its first officer serving in Iraq earlier this month in a sniper attack.
JAWA
(.)(.)
I have been thinking more and more about the need for an Enlightenment in Muslim societies.
Even if the United States and its allies manages to put democracies in place in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will do no good if Sharia becomes the main source of law. If the government continues to depend on the approval of religious clerics and their followers, then the education system will continue to teach fanaticism.
Also, because no criticism or discussion of Islam is possible in those societies, how can anti-clerical forces (similar to those represented by Voltaire)make their views known?
The internet might be of some use in this regard but the internet (as the Chinese and Saudis have shown) can be censored too!
One of the biggest problems is the difference between how Islam and Christianity view relations with the state. Christians could render unto Caesar what was his due and render unto God what was his due. The theological underpinnings for a separation of Church and State were there. In Islam, no separation of Church and State is possible. The state exists to serve Islam. Thus, even under a democratic system, the state must always be seen as doing the will of Islam. Turkey only manages its delicate balancing act by suppressing Islam.
Even here in the West, Islam cannot be criticized publicly because, ironically, of the legacy of the Enlightenment ideas of religious tolerance.
Our only hope really is that large numbers of Muslims will become apostates and have the courage to publicly state their apostacy and have the ability to promote their views. Alas, this hope seems forlorn because apostates are instantly threatened with death not to mention shunned by their family and friends.
Anyone who has publicly criticized Islam has been the victim of intimidation campaigns.
So, what can we do? Support the apostates by buying their books. Support brave people like Robert Spencer who dare to criticize Islam in spite of death threats. Challenge any government legislation that seeks to censor any criticism of Islam. Unfortunately, it seems that is up to us, individual actors, to change the world.
Good luck to us all.
The linked AP article speaks for itself. A terror cell in Los Angeles included former inmates of the California State Prison, Sacramento (New Folsom) who were members of a group of Islamic extremists called the "Jamal Ul Islam Is Sabech" (JIS). Apparently the "gang" thrives at that institution.
Detailed plans were seized at the apartment of a former New Folsom boarder outlining a series of attacks on National Guard armories, synagogues and other Jewish cultural centers. A Pakistani national who was controlling the cell was also arrested. Radio newscasts I heard during the day reported at least one of the arrested terrorists worked at a duty free shop at LAX.
Paul Sperry has documented how the Imam responsible for hiring and firing Muslim chaplains in the New York State prison system said the 9/11 hijackers were "martyrs" who died for the faith, not murderers. He added, "Even Muslims who say they are against terrorism secretly admire and applaud [the hijackers]."
Sperry also exposed the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for allowing a group with strong ties to Islamic terrorists to takeover Muslim religious programs throughout the system.
As bad as New York and BOP supervision of Muslim religious programs appears to be, Sperry could at least identify the central office bureaucrats responsible for making them that way. Muslim chaplains in both systems were recruited, "vetted" and hired by managers at headquarters.
Not so in the reformed CDCR where the hiring a Muslim chaplains is delegated to 33 wardens as this job description for a current vacancy makes clear.
Even more troubling are the "qualifications" for prospective Imams. Instead of referrals from the national associations, the CDCR requires candidates to be:
"Currently in good standing with the American Muslim Community, verified and approved by the local resident Imam where the applicant attends as a member. All candidates must attach to their application a letter of certification of good standing issued by the local resident Imam."
So, any storefront Mosque --- like the one in Inglewood where three of those arrested today worshipped --- Imam can vouch for future CDCR chaplains. We have no central control of hiring and no standard for the wardens to use. In practice, the wardens further delegate the hiring decisions to the prison education managers who "supervise" Imams. In practice, chaplains of all faiths are loosely supervised at best.
Corcoran State Prison offers an example of just how lax prison managers can be when it comes to Imams. The warden allows mail addressed to the Muslim chaplain to be carried into the prison without first being processed in the mail room, thus circumventing security procedures. Prison officers have no idea what is in the chaplain's mail and packages.
Senior staff at the prison report that Corcoran's Imam has made statements in support of the Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 mass murders.
Roderick Hickman, California's corrections chief, announced that an investigation of the New Folsom Islamists was in process. He was tight lipped otherwise.
CDCR has opened the flood gates to all manner of odd balls since Arnold Schwarzenegger set about "reforming" the prison system on the cheap. Nation of Islam racists have been invited in by Hickman and the Church of Scientology cult has been allowed to establish "programs" without meaningful CDCR supervision. Wardens throughout the state --- under extreme pressure from Hickman --- have opened the prison gates to unscreened community activists offering free programs of dubious value.
As this plays out Hickman should be asked four questions about the status of the JIS gang at New Folsom and elsewhere in CDCR:
1) What steps, if any, did he take prior to the arrests to control the Islamist hate group?
2) Was the JIS allowed to conduct their in-prison activities using the cover of sanctioned inmate activity groups?
3) Can he produce any officer safety bulletins CDC or CDCR issued concerning the JIS group?
4) How many JIS gang members have been removed from prison mainlines and given indeterminate Security Housing Unit terms since he became Secretary?
Given that a top state homeland security official told MSNBC, "Nothing I have seen suggests there is a widespread al-Qaida recruitment movement within the prison system, but all you need is three or four to conduct an attack", we can assume Hickman and other senior CDCR appointees were caught unaware by the arrests yesterday.
rob
John:
You are a mental case.
This blog is not about Islam.
Your posts turned me off, and pushed me toward supporting the poor moslems you are attacking.
Your should be more intelligent from now on as not to make yourself more enemies.
John, this ugly face needs to know that:
"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven…
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance…
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to throw away…"
But your mind is so obssessed with crying and hating.
Please stop posting articles here, this ruins the discussion. Put a link instead.
Goddamn it Josh, can you please do something? just allow ppl who register to post, i know it would help a lot, otherwise serious people are just gonna give up and stop posting. We are losing a lot more than what we can gain by leaving the status quo as is.
I totally agree with this criminal.
Unfortunately, I am in agreement too.
This john managed to unite Arabs after all.
Joseph ALi Mohammed
Bangladesh bombs: 2 dead, 50 held
Thursday, August 18, 2005 Posted: 0027 GMT (0827 HKT)
Police examine an explosive device after it was defused in Dhaka.
Image:
DHAKA, Bangladesh (AP) -- More than 100 homemade bombs planted by suspected Islamic militants exploded nearly simultaneously across Bangladesh on Wednesday, killing two people, including a young boy, and wounding at least 125.
About 50 people were arrested, a state-run news agency reported.
There was no claim of responsibility, but leaflets from a banned group seeking the imposition of Islamic law were found at many scenes.
Police said the bombs apparently were designed to cause limited damage.
The blasts killed a bicycle rickshaw driver in the northern town of Chapainawabganj and a 10-year-old boy in the central town of Savar.
The explosions caused panic and massive traffic jams in a number of cities, as people fled for safety and rushed to schools to bring their children home.
Security was stepped up, with police deploying to major intersections to check vehicles and even frisking pedestrians for bombs.
At least 125 people were injured in more than 100 blasts, the state-run Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha reported.
Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, who left for China before the blasts, called the attacks a "cowardly, conspiratorial and well-planned terrorist act."
The attackers "want to realize their heinous designs by spreading panic among the people and creating instability," the United News of Bangladesh quoted Zia as saying from Beijing.
The main opposition leader, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, blamed the government for the blasts, saying its failure to catch and punish those involved in similar attacks encouraged perpetrators of such crimes.
Leaflets from the Jumatul Mujahedin were found at many blast scenes, police said. The group wants to establish an Islamic state in Bangladesh, an overwhelmingly Muslim nation governed by secular laws.
"It's an organized attack," Lufuzzaman Babar, a top official in the Home Ministry, told the local TV station ATN Bangla. "It's not a simple incident."
In Washington, the United States called the bombings a "heinous crime" and conveyed its condolences to the victims and their families, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Three men were arrested in the southern district of Cox's Bazar for carrying or hurling bombs, said police officer Rezaul Karim.
In the city of Chittagong, police arrested two men carrying crude homemade bombs and firecrackers, said police officer Osman Gani said. Two other suspects were picked up elsewhere in Chittagong, Gani said without elaborating.
In Dhaka, police were questioning a hospitalized man who reportedly was injured while allegedly carrying a bomb near two hotels.
The leaflets found near blast sites called for the imposition of Islamic law.
"There should not be any other laws except Allah's in a Muslim country. But it's a pity that in Bangladesh, where about 90 percent are Muslims, Allah's rules are not implemented," said the leaflets, which were written in Bengali and Arabic.
Earlier this year, the government outlawed Jumatul Mujahedin and another Islamic group, Jagrata Muslim Janata, for their alleged involvement in a spate killings, robberies and bomb attacks in recent years.
Police who examined a number of unexploded bombs said they contained explosives packed in small containers and wrapped in tape, paper or sawdust -- instead of the nails or shrapnel that more deadly bombs contain.
They were rigged with small, battery-powered timers, police said.
The blasts went off mainly at government offices, press clubs and courts across the country, police and Bangladeshi media reported.
In Dhaka, about a dozen bombs exploded near the airport, at court buildings and in markets, city official Kalpana Rani Dutta said. At least four people were injured, doctors at Dhaka Medical College Hospital said.
tx anon, why don't you give us a link to google news instead?
A R A B S .....take a look
The Ugly (real) Face of Lebanon....
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
This is really upsetting. I have heard of mistreatment of foreign domestic workers but never realized it is so severe that an innocent poor human being like Sushar Rosky has to hang herself. In the Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia many foreign domestic workers are subjected to rape and everything. You are correct the Lebanese government and media will not make much of this. But you need to be fair to great number of decent and God fearing Lebanese that are as upset as you and me and are disgusted by the treatment the foreign domestic workers get from some Lebanese masters. Not every one treats their domestic workers like slaves. Some are loved and respected and never mistreated. I know that because I have seen it with my own eyes. I think that the domestic workers should organize if they can because not only the Lebanese government does not care about them but the Sri Lankan government does not give a damn about then either. The domestic foreign workers in Lebanon need help from international human rights organizations and they will find many Lebanese that will help them.
Thanks for posting this and exposing this problem.
All the Arabs do is bark like dogs complain, blame others and make deadly threats and promises and promises to enhiliate the transgressor, just like the god they worship 5 times a day at the hour. They never do anything to improve the society. Coward, incompetent and backward human scums. SRP is giving you the opportunity to empower you to change Syria and Lebanon, if you have any skills in computers, GPS, remote control and other talent or skill, put it to use or for ever shut the fuck up and live like a coward Arab human summ that everyone in the world looks down at as an underashiver, deceiver, ignorant, backward and all the other traits that are hardly untrue or inacurate of representing the kind people you are.
HEHEHEHE, Thanks Imad, that last comment should make a good finally for this topic. Lets see what Josh will be posting on Monday. He never posted anything about Assad visit to that criminal organization U.N. or who the hell signed on Rami Makhloof Jet fuel deliveries to the US army, But I know whos bank account is getting filled to tilt out of this profit. Someone that don't giva a fuck about anything but greed.
I bet Josh next topic will be : JASMIN REVOLUTION IS BLOSSEMING IN DAMASCUS, IS IT TOO FAST AND TOO MUCH. What a fucker, just as bad as the one getting rich filling Oudi bank account.
Human are fucking stupid and I have no sympathy for them at all.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/number-two-us-diplomat-in-iraq.php
It seems good old David has been spilling the beans to AIPAC. Wow, what a shocker, American diplomats provding Israel with national secrets? and your telling me the Oscars are political? Say it isn't so.
Imad:
You have a great and wonderful Blog. It should be advertised. The world is cruel, and you have depicted that very well in it. I think also that no matter how ugly and biased the West seems to be when dealing with international crisis, the rich Arabs are probably the worst on Earth when dealing with those they consider infeiror to them, and think of them as their slaves (The Quran gave absolutely no rights to slaves, as it never mentioned any right, but mentioned many times how a "master" can screw his slaves the way he wishes sexually or otherwise. In every occasion, we see the words "wa ma malakat aymanekum" even when it gives the prophet the right to screw all women relatives to him, and strangers, and then includes his slaves).
Concerning your remarks on the Gaza evacuation, here is an article from the Guardian that agrees with you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1552360,00.html
Josh couldn't accept what was written against him, so he cut the comments on his newest post about Bashar's visit to NY.
Test
CHECK OUT:
www.souriaty.blogspot.com
CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM PLEASE!!!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home