Hatred's Kingdom

Dore Gold’s Hatred’s Kingdom is the definitive book on Saudi Arabia’s support for Islamist terrorism and their role in furthering the jihadist ideology that creates suicide bombers. If, like me, you thought Dore Gold was just a diplomat, let me reassure you that this is a book by a scholar – one who originally researched the subject for his doctoral dissertation. He has mastered the history and uncovered the incriminating facts. Saudi Arabia is no friend—but the locus of funding and propaganda behind the enemy we face.

The Saudis back the Wahhabi movement. Wahhabism, founded in the 17th century, seeks a return to the practice of original (i.e. salafi) Islam of Mohammad’s days. This is a jihadist movement against all non-Muslims (they supported jihad against the Sikhs in the 1820s, for example) and against the Shiites (Wahhab, himself, attacked Shiites in, what is today, Iraq).

Early in the 20th century, the British supported the Saudi family, who gained control of Mecca from the Hashemite family. Under Saudi control strict Islam was enforced through out Arabia. In 1963, the educational system came under Wahhabi control. But, more importantly, the 1960s saw the influx of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood originated the Islamic Revival in response to Ataturk’s abolition of the caliphate. Sayyid Qutb, a key force in the Brotherhood (also see Paul Berman’s Terror and Liberalism) was executed by Nasser in 1966. The Brotherhood sought and found refuge in Saudi Arabia. Members of the Brotherhood assumed university positions in the newly created Islamic University of Medina and King Abdul Aziz University. It was at the latter that Muhammad Qutb, brother of Sayyid, taught a young Osama bin Laden true Islam.

Gold notes (as does Berman) that Sayyid Qutb lived briefly in America and was repulsed by modern culture. A feeling widely shared by devout Muslims. In “1957, Wilfred Cantwell Smith of McGill University wrote, ‘Most westerners have simply no inkling of how deep and fierce is the hate of the West that has gripped the modernizing Arab.’” (Gold p93-4).

At Aziz University was Abdullah Azzam, who taught the centrality of jihad to Islam. He hoped for a replay of Islam’s glory – when Muslims defeated the Byzantine and Persian empires and appeared to conquer the world. “Azzam saw his new jihad crushing the Soviet Union and the United States.” (Gold p98) At the Islamic University of Medina two influential faculty members (Jarishan and al-Zubayq) condemn Western secularism: “In the economic field that means the flag of capitalism, in the political field that means the principles of democracy, and in the social field it waves the principles of freedom.” And they damned “secularism in education and the mass media as ‘aggression against Islamic legitimacy.’” (Gold p101)

In the 1970s, with Saudi oil wealth, King Faisel’s Muslim World League spread the Wahhabi virus worldwide. “Saudi Arabia … embarked on a massive campaign to bring Wahhabi Islam to the world. Between 1982 and 2002, 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, and 20,000 schools to educate Muslim children were established in non-Muslims countries alone.” (Gold p126) Saudis funded Hamas, an out growth of the Muslim Brotherhood. They funded and co-opted Cairo’s oldest and most authoritative university, al-Azhar. They funded the Madrassahs in Pakistan and the Afghan fighters against the USSR.

“In fact, Osama bin Laden and Prince Turki al-Faisal, a son of King Faisal, knew each other during bin Laden’s university days. Turki would make use of his relationship with bin Laden after the prince became the Saudi intelligence chief in September 1977. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he put bin Laden in charge of moving Arab volunteers who wanted to fight the Soviets from Saudi Arabia to Peshawar, Pakistan.” (Gold p129-130)

The Taliban were not originally Wahhabi but that changed with Saudi influence. Dore Gold shows the ease in which Saudi-style Wahhabi Islam is welcomed and accepted worldwide. Islam doesn’t differ as much as various sects of Christianity. For example, 70-80% of American mosques are Saudi funded and staffed even thought the vast majority of Muslims in America don’t come from a country like Saudi Arabia. Imagine going to England and finding that 80% of the priests in the Church of England were ordained by the Roman Catholic Church. It’s unimaginable! The ease with which Wahhabi influence spreads shows the lack of doctrinal variations among various branches of Islam. (This is not a point Gold makes, however.)

Gold continue to document the Saudi influence and aid to the terrorists throughout the 1990s and even after 9/11. The Saudi family (and thus the Saudi government) funds the violence and the spread of propaganda. Our government completely ignores the spread of Wahhabi Islam. Gold notes: “But unless the ideological motivation for terrorism is addressed and, indeed, extinguished, then the war on terror will not be won. Saudi Arabia is the breeding ground for Wahhabi extremism and consequently the source of the hatred that impels international terrorist organizations.” (Gold p225)

I’ve just scratched the surface on Saudi complicity in the terror of the last 20 years. Read the book for the full details. This is a book that should be in every library.

Notes: Here is a biography of Dore Gold. His 2003 WSJ article argues that we must do more than fight military battles in Iraq – we must address the source of the jihad, Saudi Arabia. Daniel Pipes suggests there is one place to start if one wants to learn about Saudi Arabia. The Middle East Form sums up Dr. Gold’s thesis succinctly.

The Saudi Problem

Saudi Arabia spearheads the worldwide Islamist movement by the establishment of educational institutions around the globe dedicated to reawakening the jihadist ideology. A vast recruiting and training network produces hate-filled warriors eager to kill anyone in their path for the glory of Islam. Saudi powerbrokers finance global terror groups from Hamas to Al Qaeda. (See our review.) The time has come to reconsider our repugnant association with these duplicitous international criminals. What should we do in the face of this threat? Let’s start by severing all ties with Saudi Arabia – military, trade, travel, and diplomatic.

Impossible, you say? Given that 15% of our oil imports originate in Saudi Arabia, the idea of ending our Saudi trade relationship is deemed unimaginable or only possible in the distant future after the development of alternative sources of energy. Neither political party dares suggest such a move in the current context. Unfortunately, the economics is poorly understood but far worse, moral leadership is next to non-existent. First the economics:

Oil is a commodity. Like any commodity its price is determined by the market and it can be sold and resold any number of times. Oil isn’t made-to-order for a particular buyer like a custom suit from one’s personal tailor. The production, purchase, resale, and consumption of oil in today’s modern global economy are determined by market forces – not personal relationships. The path from producer to consumer is spontaneously rearranging.

The production of oil is driven by producers’ needs – not our needs – and will continue even if we refused to buy another ounce. Over 90% of Saudi export revenue comes from oil – 40% of their GDP. They have to sell oil to eat; they are not doing us a favor. Given the drop in the standard of living of the average Saudi – more than half since the early 80s – the Saudi capacity for withholding oil on a sustained basis is severely limited by political considerations.

The modern international oil market is governed by a vast trading network. I’m told by Energy traders that a barrel of oil will change ownership more than a dozen times before it reaches your car’s gas tank. Trying to mark a barrel of oil and control its final destination is an exercise in futility. Even if the Saudis sold only to non-American companies, not much changes. These companies either sell to us or they must reduce purchases from their previous suppliers – who, in turn, would have supply available for our companies.

But what are “our” companies? Oil companies are owned by the individual stockholders who live all over the world. Some companies have headquarters based in America; others, like British Petroleum (BP) or Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Shell) have their headquarters in Europe. Does it matter to us where the CEO has his desk? Multi-national corporations are only nominally associated with a particular flag.

Let’s assume the initial Saudi reaction is to reduce production and delve into savings. That, of course, will raise market prices and hurt all consumers worldwide. And it could not last – sand just doesn’t fill the stomach. Consider, also, the removal of American personal; this will have a devastating affect on Saudi production – but only until French and Germans take their places. After a transient effect, the economics of oil remains unchanged.

Now, forget everything I just said about economics. Most people don’t understand economics and their fears will not subside. What is needed is moral leadership to maintain resolve in the face of uncertainties and to maintain strength of character during near term periods of want. In life one makes choices – moral choices – without knowing how to insure one’s goals or satisfy one’s desires. Maintaining moral discipline is both the honorable and prudent path in the long run.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have sent dedicated men and women into war to fight a vicious and loathsome enemy. As our brave fighters risk their lives or, in many cases, die in combat, it is surely appropriate to expect those of us in the comfort of our homes to tighten our belts and go without for the duration. If some believe our actions against Saudi Arabia will cause higher oil prices, we should be ashamed to complain about such hardships at a time like this.

As the Saudi enemy is sending suicide bombers across the borders to kill our troops, we cannot be hesitant in responding to these acts of war. If trained jihadists from the worldwide network of Saudi-funded Islamic schools turn up in Iraq, we cannot continue business as usual with these religious despots. From Afghanistan to Algeria to the Philippines to Nigeria and to a church in Bethlehem, Saudi money, teachings, and trainings bring endless jihadist terror. When will we take a moral stand? When will we identify the enemy? If not now when?

The Saudi Imperative

A recent article reminds us that Saudi Arabia remains the center of the Islamist problem. They fund the movement and provide its ideological rationale. We’ve talked about this before and suggested a change in policy.

Let’s remember that not only have we exempted Saudi Arabia from our criticism but we materially aid her. We provide Saudi Arabia with its defense without which it would not exist.

As a sponsor of this terrorist country what would happen if they initiated or funded a nuclear terrorist attack? Clearly the country nuked would need to respond with a counter attack. We have wedded ourselves to a chief sponsor of terror. If the Bush Doctrine isn’t going to be a joke, it is imperative that we end our relationship with this evil kingdom and stop selling-out our principles, honor, and safety.

Update1: Let the good folks at Gates of Vienna spell out the Saudi threat in today's article. A musts read!

Update2: AOW continues to expose Saudi activities in the USA.

Index

Anti-War
Leftist Defeatism, Defeatism of Rep. Murtha
Media undermines war effort by double standard.
Left revisionism of Clinton’s policy on Iraq.
Muslim refute Leftist “root causes.” Link to Neuro-Conservative
The Left’s demented vilification of America.
Respectful dissent and vicious anti-American hate.
Conservatives
Tough on Communism but soft on Islam: William F. Buckley, Jr.
Some conservatives get it. Quotes from writers in To The Point.
Jack Wheeler: on Islam, moral offensive, and Leftist appeasement
Tony Blankley exposes the Islamist threat to Europe.
Some conservatives believe Islamists raise good points.
President now sees threat of ideology vaguely related to Islam.
Jack Wheeler: fight the jihad, moral offensive, no appeasement.
Conservatives fought communism but are in denial about Islam.
Conservatives and others can’t take on a religion.
Confusion conservatives have about secularism.
This conservative doesn’t object to Islamic theocracy.
Jack Wheeler on Islam as a political ideology.
Michael Ledeen says Bush is not tough enough.
Jack Wheeler on moral certainty in the past and today.
Culture, Morality
Moral Judgment (Ghate on Ostracism; Maoz on Giuliani)
Culture: the effects of Philosophy, Religion, and Ideology
Islam is the problem, both left & right in denial.
Islam as an ideology
Philosophy is the root cause; thus Islam is a root cause.
Ignoring the influence of Islam and expecting change.
Our Greco-Roman Heritiage
Epistemological problems in our culture: intellectual surrender.
The Denial of Islam like denials of past threats.
Ideology is the key: Islam. (Machen and Alexiev)
Jack Wheeler on Islam as a political ideology.
Secularism is the solution to the religion of Islam.
Links, importance of Islamic ideology: Trifkovic, Flew on Warraq, Pipes on Warraq.
Warraq on Islam, truth, philosophy, etc.
Islam: links to six articles from Sixth Column.
The universality of rights.
Conservatives confused about Islamic threat and secularism.
Arab culture and their way of thinking.
Islam’s rule-based thinking and lack of universalism.
America has reason to be proud.
Paleo-Libertarians fail to understand the influence of culture.
Islam and 9/11 – re-affirmational aspects of the religion.
The election was a transformational act.
But democracy isn’t enough.
Democracy isn’t enough – especially in Islamic countries.
Cultural change is slow and there are often setbacks.
Denial of the Islamic Threat
The denial is like those of the past & includes left & right.
Compared to Denial of Totalitarian Threats in the 1930s
Both present and past Presidents lie about Islam.
Our gullibility and blindness to the threat.
Dhimmi-whipped
Prince Charles
Washingon’s deception and appeasement of Saudi Arabia
ABC fires Michael Graham
National Review caves to CAIR.
The deliberate lack of Muslim villains.
Columbia faculty is Dhimmi-whipped.
Hollywood changes Muslim villains to non-Muslim.
France and Europe
The Response to the Islamist Uprising In France
Multi-Culturalism & Identity Politics in Europe
With links to Tracinski & Thornton
The cause of Islamic Rioting in France
Criticism of Islam is illegal in major European countries.
Tony Blankley exposes the Islamist threat to Europe.
Europe faces the Islamic threat after 7/7 but worries continue.
Islam & 7/7 Islamo-facism comments by Frank Gaffney.
History of Islam
Links including Short’s history of the Ottomans via Gandalf.
Egypt: had hope when it was under Colonial Rule
Mohammad’s ethnic cleansing.
Islam’s respect for individual rights
Afghanistan’s suppression of freedoms or speech and religion.
Links including Robert Spencer: on oppression of the Copts
Mohammad’s ethnic cleansing.
Islamism or Islam?
Islamic Revival or Islam or Islamism?
Islam is a supremacist ideology.
Islam’s role in 9/11.
Exposing Islam effectively
The Islamic Revival and technology.
President now sees threat of ideology vaguely related to Islam.
Jack Wheeler: fight the jihad, moral offensive, no appeasement.
Jack Wheeler on Islam as a political ideology.
Link to Islam’s role in terrorism (Locke on Islam’s role; Pipes on UK Muslims )
Marx and Mohammad compared by Jack Wheeler.
The Koran vs. Das Kapital. Islam is not difficult to understand.
Islam and 9/11 – documentary review.
Islamism worsens in Pakistan.
Terrorism as the result of foreign policy … Islam’s foreign policy.
Fatwa on bin Laden – Muslims hate losers.
Moderate Islam
Moderate Islam is not the solution.
Does Moderate Islam exist?
Secularism is the solution.
The other Islam?
Original Islam is not Islam?
Where’s Moderate Islam after the 7/7 London attacks?
Pragmatism
Brief comments and a link to Edward Cline’s article on its influence.
Denial of the threat of Communism.
Pragmatism blinds us again.
Anti-ideology and the inability to effect change.
Prejudice, Bigotry, Hate, etc.
Prejudice keeps us from vilifying Islam.
Islam is a supremacist ideology.
Islam is Racism, or the equivalent.
Hate-mongering among Muslims towards America and Jews.
Islamophobia-baiting is hate and bigotry against America.
Racism-baiting and Islam: what underhanded playing of race-card.
Conservatives and others can’t take on a religion.
In Favor of Islam – Prince Charles
Links including Daniel Pipes: “Islamophobia” intimidation tactics.
Criticism of Islam is illegal in major European countries.
Exposing Islam effectively in the face of the taboo.
The deliberate lack of Muslim villains.
Bat Ye’or fights the bigotry of Islam and anti-anti-Islam.
Post-Modernism
Multi-Culturalism and moral appeasement.
Multi-Culturalism & Identity Politics in Europe
With links to Tracinski & Thornton
The Left’s Sympathy for Islamists – Ralph Peters
Leftist Defeatism, Defeatism of Rep. Murtha
Multi-Culturalism essay by Eleanor of Sixth Column
The absurdity of identity politics.
Reform of Islam
Links including Cubed’s article on Mu’tazilite revival
Moderate Islam is not the solution.
Religious Freedom
Bush on religious freedom.
Religious freedom and the new Pope.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia’s role in Islamism, terrorism, and the jihad.
Dealing with the Saudi Problem.
Our government’s support of this terror state. (Dymphna and AOW)
Links to: Dymphna and AOW on Washington’s blindness.
Washingon’s appeasement of Saudis. (AOW and GM Roper)
Links including Frank Gaffney: Saudi Arabia is not on our side
Links to Saudi funding or terrorism – by Eleanor on Sixth Column.
Totalitarianism
Denial of Hitler’s Threat by Stalin
Popular denial of Hitler’s Threat.
Marx and Mohammad compared by Jack Wheeler.
Denial of the threat of Communism.

The Lying Continues

Once again, our representatives in Washington have cancelled a scheduled hearing on Saudi Arabia and its role in spreading fundamentalist Islamic hate. Those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as terrorists? I remember hearing those words once upon a time. How about those who create the terrorists in the first place?

Let’s hear the truth about Saudi Arabia! We, in the blogoshere, are aware of the problem. Months ago, I’ve suggested we change our relationship with the evil kingdom. The first step involves exposing the truth. Even if we continue to deal with Saudi Arabia, we should not lie by commission or omission. It may take time to form a consensus about the best course of action but we must face the truth.

As of today, our cowardly representatives in Washington lie. Yes, lie is the appropriate word for willfully evading and deceiving our country to the nature of this problem. The truth will require making tough decisions. And this may be painful to the American consumer in the short run and thus painful to the American politician. But when we are sending men and women into battle, the least we can do is to ask the American people to endure a measure of financial hardships as we disengage from supporting an enemy. The fears over such a course of action are overblown. But we should be willing to take steps even as we fear it will be painful.

The media, on the other had, is obsessed with comparatively minor matters. Apparently, we need to expose and micro-examine the testimony of someone called “Scooter.” Might I suggest we expose Saudi Arabia and the jihadist movement first? Should we not do something about those people who hate and want to kill us? My patience has run out; our politicians and the press are failing us. Let's hold them accountable.

Update (10/31): We are once again blinded by our own lies; with eyes closed we eagerly train and educate our enemies. (Hat tip: Mustang.) Deception is not a practical road to victory. We don’t fool them; we fool ourselves.

Moderate Islam or Secularization?

There’s a general consensus, across the political spectrum, that Moderate Islam is the only hope for the reform of Islamic societies. With rare exception, this is based on a vast ignorance of Islam – as a religion and historical force – coupled with a projection of Western sentiments onto Islamic societies. In a future article, I’ll argue that moderate Islam is not a tenable long-term solution. For now, let’s focus on, what many consider less likely: the prospects of secularization.

Scholarly journals generally discuss, not fundamentalist Islam, but what they call an Islamic Revival. This suggests that Islam has, to some extent, waned. Indeed, if we go back fifty years, the dominant cultural influences were secular: socialism and nationalism. Islam was disparaged as a force holding back Arab and other nominally-Islamic nations. In each country, the exact relationship of secularism and religion varied. Turkey’s secularization came close to Europe’s (at least officially). Iran was undergoing a similar secularization process under the Shah. In many Arab countries, Islam was accorded perfunctory respect but privately it was disparaged. In Iraq, according to one source, there were one million Communists in the 1950s – not exactly a religious friendly movement. In Afghanistan, 5th column communists actually gained power two years before requesting Soviet military intervention. The failure of the collectivist road to secularism was the motivation for the Islam Revival in the last 30 years.

What was the religious practice before the revival? Islam, like Orthodox Christianity, had stagnated for several centuries. Drained of any intellectual innovation, both became heavily ritualistic and rote with faint memories of past glory. An astute social commentator, 80 years ago, compared the practices of the monotheistic religions and saw vast differences between Western Christianity and the Eastern religions of Islam, Judaism, and Orthodox Christianity. Islam is declared “dead,” “nothing more than a ritual,” “offer[s] nothing to the mind,” “despiritualized,” full of “legal forms and external rule.” (Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, p 370, Liberty Classics) Other authors came to similar conclusions.

The center of Islam was the Caliphate in Turkey. Ataturk, transformed Turkey, by blood and iron, into a secular society. By abolishing the Caliphate on March 3, 1924, he brought an end to this 1300 years old institution. This would have been the equivalent of Mussolini closing the Vatican. The other major example of near-complete religious suppression is the Bolshevik elimination of Orthodox Christianity in Russia. In both cases spiritually-dormant religions were pushed aside and discarded. Compare that to the vibrancy of Catholicism in communist Poland!

The revival of Islam started with the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt and an obscure Arabian family who happened to be sitting on top of the world’s greatest reserve of oil. After the Brotherhood was driven from Egypt, the Saudi family welcomed them with open arms. Many found gainful employment in Saudi universities. The ideological architect of the Islamic Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, was killed by the Egyptian government but his brother, Mohammad Qutb taught in the university at Medina and his star pupil, Osama bin Laden, put his teachings into practice. The Saudi oil wealth enabled the establishment of a world-wide network of educational institutions. Soon, Muslims everywhere were learning about Islam as Mohammad practiced it – Salafi or original Islam.

Our ignorance of the practice of Islam leaves us unprepared and the dream of a moderate Islam causes undue hesitation as we seek to avoid offense. We are easily manipulated. At the start of the Afghan campaign, we were warned about dire consequences if we continued the war during Ramadan and seriously considered postponing combat. One such warning came from our “friend” Musharraf. However, as any student of Middle East history can attest, Arabs call the Yom Kippur War the Ramadan War because they initiated aggression against Israel during Ramadan. Incidentally, it was financed by the ultra religious Saudi government. In another recent example, we are told that our disrespect for the Koran has inflamed Muslim hatred. But Mark Steyn explodes that myth (hat tip: Social Sense). Our apologetics plays right into the hands of the Islamists who boast of Islam’s power to elicit respect from its enemies. The examples of blunders like this are endless.

Islam is the root cause of the Jihadist’s war against America (and against all non-Muslims). Not only do we fail to understand this motivation but we mistakenly praise the religion. In an attempt to encourage a “moderate” Islam we have embarked on a “self-esteem” inducing regimen where we continually praise the “true” Islam that’s been “hijacked” by the “evil ones.” Similar to the failed “make them feel good first” educational techniques ubiquitous in primary education, our policy is to make them feel good about Islam first in the hopes that they’ll invent and practice a “good” Islam later. As we soothingly say “good Muslims,” they act out in violent fits. Our co-dependent-like response – i.e. reassurance that they don’t really support those extremists (and here’s some more foreign aid) – only encourages more bad behavior. This is part of the “Oslo Syndrome.”

While we’ve imagined a vigorous and deep-rooted practice far in excess of the reality, the left errs in the opposite direction. Quick to deny the power of religion and to look for economic “root causes,” the left has been taken by surprise. Edward Said, Columbia University professor and Palestinian terrorist, wrote the book that changed Middle East Studies in 1978: Orientalism. The eminent scholar, Martin Kramer, explains how Said embarrassingly dismissed, in his usual sarcastic manner, Western writers that see Islam as a potent social force. I say embarrassingly because in 1979, Khomeini rose to power in Iran. However wrong Said and other leftists were, they could deny Islam’s power precisely because the revival was building steam under the surface. The secular-nationalist-socialist forces were taken for granted even if they were rotten at the core.

Can Islamic countries become open to a more rational liberal secularism? Yes, I believe so but more importantly, what would it take? Before we consider that we should examine the case for a moderate Islam for comparison as it is the current default in the minds of our policy makers. That will be left for a future article.

Oil and the Enemy

Here’s an original thinker:

“The problem we face today is not our love of oil, but oil-rich dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia--who use ill-gotten profits to spread totalitarian Islamic ideology around the world and terrorize us with their minions. The solution is not to punish ourselves by renouncing oil--but to punish our enemies until they renounce their aggression.”

Let me add that the economics of oil doesn’t change if we refuse to buy oil from Saudi Arabia. Oil is not like a custom suit, tailor-made for one individual. Oil is fungible and a liquid commodity in a financial sense. It is sold into the market—not to a person. Even if we weren’t a customer, Saudi Arabia would have the same financial income to fund the worldwide jihadist movement. Iran proves that you don’t need to sell to America to fund Islamic aggression.

Saudi Arabia: Jihad Leader

Paul Sperry, in the New York Post, explains that “our Saudi ‘ally’ is playing us for suckers.” A Senate Judiciary Committee report explains how “Riyadh has not stopped exporting anti-U.S., pro-jihad propaganda to our shores. And it's now whipping up young jihadists to cross the border into Iraq and kill our soldiers.” Sperry suggests that we should demand that our legislators support the “Saudi Arabia Accountability Act.” Damn good idea!

Wheeler on Jihadism

Jack Wheeler’s interview on FrontPageMag reiterates many of the important points and has a few surprises as well. Here’s a sample:

“We need to go on the moral offensive. The moral currency of Islam is debased. It is infected with a moral virus that has rendered it a morally inferior religion. It no longer deserves our respect and if Moslems want our respect back they must earn it by disinfecting their religion of moral poison.

We also need to target Saudi Wahhabism as the financial locus of world Jihadism. This means shutting down by whatever methods necessary Saudi funding of Wahhabi mosques, madressahs, and terrorist training centers all over the world (80% of all mosques in the US, for example, are Wahhabi). …

And of course a necessary condition for winning this war is regime change in Iran. As my friend Michael Ledeen says, peace in Iraq requires regime change in Iran. ...

It is completely unimportant that Jihadists or their Moslem sympathizers and apologists “understand” us. What is important is that they be afraid of us. That they have a conviction that if they attack us we will hunt them down and kill them dead. That they know we are the folks that obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden with no regrets and we will do the same to Mecca and Medina if necessary. That we have nothing but contempt for them and they have no hope of defeating us.

The problem is that Jihadism is hard-wired into Islam’s founding document, the Koran – and so is anything else you want. The Koran is the most incoherent religious text ever put down on paper. That’s because it is not a book – it is a chant. It is not meant to be pondered and thought about. It is not meant to be read at all. It is meant to be chanted in a language – Classical Arabic – un-understood by most of the world’s Moslems as is Latin by almost all Christians, in order to put believers into an unthinking, unreflective trance. The Koran was composed haphazardly at the end of the seventh century (two to three generations after Mohammed supposedly lived), as was the entire religion of Islam, to provide a religious rationale for the Arab Conquest and the continued rule of Arabs over conquered non-Arabs.”

There’s much more. What I like about the whole article is his lack of appeasement. He’s not concerned about winning their hearts. There’s no groveling in Jack’s approach. As to his specifics – you decide. But his approach is clear: we need a deterrent and this comes from the willingness to respond with force – not to liberate your enemy but to annihilate your enemy. And if your deterrent is believable, you won’t have to use it. That alone won’t tell us what the right deterrent is; and whether you accept Jack’s example in the article is another matter. But the principle makes sense. Appeasement never works in the long run.

Our willingness to fight and not run - in Afghanistan and Iraq - helps establish that deterrent. But there are many aspects of our policy that show we haven't abandoned our appeasement stance: funding Palestinian terrorist via corrupt West Bank leaders, failing to engage in a propaganda war against Islam, apologizing to our enemies for less than admirable behavior of a few errand members of the military, and continuing business as usual with Saudi Arabia.

There are many steps to take to increase the perception that we are serious without going to war or in addition to the actions we’ve taken so far. And we can do this without reaching for the ultimate tool in our arsenal. Still, I won’t argue against tough talk. My point is that it won’t be believable if we contradict it with every other action that still reeks of appeasement.

Saudis Fund Islamist Terror

Following up on our expose of Saudi Arabia as the fountainhead of Islamism and our recommendation for a change in policy, please consider today’s article on Saudi funding of terrorism on the Sixth Column blogspot.

Let’s remember that we provide Saudi Arabia with its defense – it exists by our grace.

Bernard Lewis and the Myths of Islam

Bernard Lewis summarizes how, in his view, the Islamic world has degenerated first by importing European totalitarian models and now as it returns to Islam. It’s an article worth reading even if it is flawed. Or perhaps because it is flawed! Lewis, we should remember, is esteemed by today’s conservative establishment.

Lewis repeats themes typical of European conservatives going back to the French Revolution. American conservatives, influenced by Edmund Burke among others, echoed these notions and sentiments during the Cold War. Traditionalist conservatives tend to romanticize feudalism, monarchy, and what they see as a delicate balance of institutions maintained by tradition. There is a fondness for so-called middle institutions – those between the individual and the nation-state – such as church, guild, fraternal orders, etc. Lewis sounds a similar note in his analysis of Islam’s history.

Prior to the influence of the West, the Ottoman Empire had a balance of power, weighed down by a paralyzing Byzantine bureaucratic gridlock. Writing in 1786, “…the French ambassador in Istanbul, [i.e. Constantinople] ... explain[s] why he is making rather slow progress with the tasks entrusted to him by his government in dealing with the Ottoman government. ‘Here,’ he says, ‘things are not as in France where the king is sole master and does as he pleases.’ ‘Here,’ he says, ‘the sultan has to consult.’ He has to consult with the former holders of high offices, with the leaders of various groups and so on.”

According to Lewis' way of thinking, this idyllic stasis was corrupted by eating the fruit of knowledge – a knowledge that empowered its leaders with the technology to withstand the social forces limiting their power. Lewis explains:

“The first of these changes is what one might call modernization. This was undertaken not by imperialists, for the most part, but by Middle Eastern rulers who had become painfully aware that their societies were undeveloped compared with the advanced Western world. These rulers decided that what they had to do was to modernize or Westernize. … What they did was to increase the power of the state and the ruler enormously by placing at his disposal the whole modern apparatus of control, repression and indoctrination. At the same time, which was even worse, they limited or destroyed those forces in the traditional society that had previously limited the autocracy of the ruler. In the traditional society there were established orders-the bazaar merchants, the scribes, the guilds, the country gentry, the military establishment, the religious establishment, and so on. These were powerful groups in society, whose heads were not appointed by the ruler but arose from within the groups. And no sultan, however powerful, could do much without maintaining some relationship with these different orders in society.”

It’s obvious that the Islamic world failed to deal with the challenges of change. But we’d do better to consider the inherent flaws that make it susceptible to disintegration in the face of the winds of modernity. It is inherently autocratic, illiberal, dogmatic, ritualistic, and hostile to reason – limiting its ability to absorb the classical liberal ideals while leaving it susceptible to the socialist totalitarian mode of thought. Lewis notes that while Arabs understood the concept of equality they have a very limited notion of liberty.

“As used in Arabic at that time, liberty was not a political but a legal term: You were free if you were not a slave. The word liberty was not used as we use it in the Western world, as a metaphor for good government. So the idea of a republic founded on principles of freedom caused some puzzlement.”

Lewis fails to explain that the British concept of liberty, expressed best by John Locke, is based on individual self-ownership – not this vague notion of good government that merely begs the question. Self-ownership wasn’t merely de jure, it was freedom from the state with full rights to the fruits of one’s labor, the right of acquisition and disposal of property, and the complete freedom to associate with other sovereign individuals. Good government was virtually no government except that which insured that liberty was universal by prohibiting the initiation of force.

This isn’t an accidental omission on Lewis’ part. Consider how he illustrates the Islamic mindset by describing the philosophy of an influential Egyptian sheikh returning from Paris: “… when the French talk about freedom they mean what Muslims mean when they talk about justice. By equating freedom with justice, he [the sheikh] opened a whole new phase in the political and public discourse of the Arab world, and then, more broadly, the Islamic world.” Once again, this is a left-liberal definition that has its origin in Plato’s Republic. Justice, for Plato, is everything in its proper place guided by a guardian class. It was Plato’s Republic and The Laws which had a major effect on Islam during its formative years in the Abbasid dynasty. The socialist notion of justice popular in France is equal access, not liberty, determined by an entitlements-theory of who gets what from whom.

Despite the imperfect understanding of the West, the Arab world absorbed some of the customs of civilization, from the French and more importantly the British. Unfortunately, the Continental influence came to dominate. As Europe went down the “Road to Serfdom,” Arabs followed by embracing the Nazi ideal before turning to the Soviet model. Lewis exaggerates by saying “the Soviets moved in, established an immensely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq …” – Soviet tanks never rolled into these nations – Soviet ideas and aid were welcomed with open arms. They simply fit the Arab/Islamic mindset like an old worn garment slightly refurbished with new trimming.

The exception, ironically, was Saudi Arabia. It was seen as an anti-communist ally during the Cold War because it shared a strong opposition to that atheistic creed. Saudi Arabia maintained Islamic traditions. Yet, Lewis dismisses them as a lunatic fringe. Indeed, in the "colonial-influenced" West-looking Arab world of the 19^th and early 20^th century, it was indeed just that. But by religious standards can we say the same? He points out the wide acceptance of the Wahabbi establishment (which he blames on oil wealth) but again, he fails to explain the susceptibility of the vast Islamic world from Mecca to Los Angeles (his example) to what he calls the lunatic fringe. Why is the Saudi version so readily accepted rather than shunned as the bizarre variant Lewis wants us to believe? Could Catholicism sweep Alabama if the Pope had the wealth to build churches everywhere? Or the Anglican faith sweep Ireland if the 19^th century British, with their vast wealth, tried to fund such an expansion? The money doesn't explain the return to a vigorous practice of original Islam, i.e. Salafi theology.

There is a return to Islam and Lewis realizes it: “That there has been a break with the past is a fact of which Arabs and Muslims themselves are keenly and painfully aware, and they have tried to do something about it. It is in this context that we observe a series of movements that could be described as an Islamic revival or reawakening.” This, of course, should be the main theme and focus.

One hundred years ago, the waning influence of French and British "colonial" rule left the Arab world with several cosmopolitan centers, where intellectuals looked to Europe for a vision of the future. Ataturk was soon to rid Islam of its influence in Turkey and the Arab world would be on its own with the demise of the Ottoman Empire. The specter of totalitarianism was to sweep the Arab world away from the liberal 19^th century French and British colonial models, to usher in illiberal regimes that were more in tune to the Islamic mindset. The loss of the "colonial" influence and failure of indigenous totalitarian regimes encouraged a return to the original practice of Islam. It is an Islamic revival, and it has to do with internal dynamics of Arab and Islamic cultures.

Contrary to the vast majority of Western writers, Lewis realizes that Islamic nations have their own culture that generates the dynamics and direction of their societies. The typical Western writer sees the Muslim as a passive responder to Western culture and American foreign policy. This dismisses their ideas, religion, and cultural traditions as mere props unrelated to the real dynamics emanating from the sources of power in the West.

Any detailed investigation, even a flawed one, shows the key to Islamic dynamics is Islamic thought and its interplay with regional cultural peculiarities. Algeria, for example, got its independence 40 years ago but it wasn’t until the 1990s that religious strife lead to the slaughter of over 100,000. In an effort to purge itself of colonial influence it sought to re-establish an indigenous authentic culture by reviving the original practice of Islam. It is on the verge of a fundamentalist breakdown held at bay by a military regime. Lewis realizes that it isn’t an imposed backwardness but an internal failure that brings the Arab and Islamic world to its current state. He is one of the better academics as is his student Martin Kramer (see my link on the right.)

Unfortunately, Lewis goes astray in his romantic sentiments; he has fallen in love with his subject and its mythical past. Entering the stage during the last act of the colonial performance, he has mistaken the cosmopolitan ethos which Islam marginalized or reduced it to mere perfunctory trimmings as the norm and as evidence of the continuation of its mythical past. But the rejection of Western influences, both liberal and totalitarian, has exposed the unvarnished core reality underlying the patina of centuries of decay. And it is ugly, brutal, and fierce; its objective is the establishing and extending the rule of Islamic oppression.

While jettisoning the post-colonial propaganda of today’s Middle East Studies departments we should beware that returning to romantic Orientalists, such as Mr. Lewis, is an understandable temptation; but it still doesn’t deal to the core of the problem. The world Mr. Lewis knew doesn’t exist anymore. One now wonders if it ever did beyond a surface appearance.

Congrats to Dymphna and the Baron

Pajamas Media, a collaboration 70-blogs, will be launched this weekend at a reception in New York City. Included in that group are Dymphna and Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna. Congratulations! As prolific and intelligent bloggers, they’ve earned the recognition. We knew them when …

Today, they have a good article on our government's unwillingness to face the role of Saudi Arabia in the Islamist movement. You remember our “friends” the Saudis?

Update: AOW – more on the Saudi duplicity ... or should we use the Arabic: taqqiya?

Lying About Islam

Often, I’m asked how we should fight the Islamic threat that currently takes the form of jihadist violence and terrorism. But the fact of the matter is that I don’t have anything significant to contribute that’s not already said elsewhere and with greater knowledge. Playing armchair general isn’t particularly productive; and I know my limits.

However, there are two important matters missing from our current policies that I stress. The first: understand the enemy. Face the fact of Islam’s role in the motivation and justification of the enemy’s goals and methods. The second: understand our moral superiority and greatness. Our morale is undermined by 5th columnists are on a crusade to damn our values, policies and actions as inherently evil.

What we currently lack is a propaganda war – one that properly vilifies the enemy and extols our superiority.

What we see is the opposite. Instead of facing the nature of the enemy, our side is praising the enemy’s ideology, Islam. We all remember how our President called Islam a religion of peace that is hijacked by a few extremists. This, of course, is a lie. However, both parties are involved in this lie. Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, President Clinton’s advisors, in their book, The Age of Sacred Terror, praise Bush’s diplomacy as follows (page 40):

There is no gainsaying President Bush on this account. He said what needed to be said, held tight the ties that bind America to important allies, and reaffirmed tolerance at home. And, in fact, after the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, the authors of this book helped draft similar language that President Clinton used to describe the perpetrators of that atrocity. “I want the world to understand that our actions today were not aimed against Islam, the faith of hundreds of millions of good peace-loving people all around the world, including the United States, ...”

Benjamin and Simon, however, understand. They continue:

But neither President’s necessary and useful political speech should obscure the realities of September 11: the motivation for the attack was neither political calculation, strategic advantage, nor wanton bloodlust. It was to humiliate and slaughter those who defied the hegemony of God; it was to please Him by reasserting His primacy. It was an act of cosmic war. … Only by understanding the religious nature of the attacks of September 11 can we make any sense of their unprecedented scale and their intended effects.

The authors continue and succeed in explaining the religious roots of the contemporary Islamist movement.

However, a lie has its cost, and continuing this lie on a sustained basis is undermining our resolve, blinding us to the greater threat, creating intellectual confusion, and dissipating any moral clarity.

I’ve written about the Saudi threat and discussed ominous developments in Pakistan. We are all aware of the Iranian threat and the Islamists attacking Israel. We might also remember that fundamentalists would have come to power in an election in Algeria if it weren’t for the military. This movement isn’t a few Muslims confused about their religion. It is a broad worldwide Islamist movement driven by internal developments in the Islamic world. Thus, our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, while praiseworthy and noble, do not diminish this movement.

The lie will backfire. As people become aware of this movement, the 5th column will argue that it was only a few hijackers but now we’ve inflamed the whole Islamic world. Let’s get this straight: Islam is inflaming the whole Islamic world. Neither Bush nor Clinton created Islam. Nor did they create the Islamic Revival, which is an indigenous movement in several countries that is now fueled by Saudi oil money.

This is not the end of act one, this is not even the beginning of act one, this is only the prologue. We need to understand this movement if we are to deal with it effectively. Knowledge is the first step.

Pakistan's Problem Worsens

In the previous post I discussed Islamist movements indigenous to Pakistan and the India sub-continent – in particular Mawdudi and Deobandi – all strong fundamentalist movements that predate Saudi Arabia’s influence. However, the spread of fundamentalism, today, is facilitated by the Saudi funding of the madrassas through out Pakistan. As I noted, Islamism has gotten worse under Musharaf – but I didn’t realize how worse.

In today’s Wall Street Journal (August 19, 2005, page A11), in an article titled Pakistan’s Broad Educational Ills – Public Schools May stir Up More Extremism Than Madrassas, one finds that the Islamist influence has permeated all levels of the government including governmental educational institutions. The "public schools’ failure to offer a rigorous, secular alternative to religious extremism, as well as their own biased and inflammatory teachings, make the population fertile ground for Islamist recruiters," according to the Journal.

Anti-Ideology Ideology ... again

Tibor Machan, of the Hoover Institute, exposes the nonsense that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with ideology:

Instead, it is vital that we know which religions and ideologies encourage (and indeed, even insist upon) conformity with a program of indiscriminate global violence. That shouldn’t be a novel project since, throughout human history, several different religions and ideologies—the Holy Inquisition, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism come to mind—have spawned exactly that kind of program. It’s shameful to deny this just as the same kind of thing is engulfing us today.

He links to and recommends an excellent article, London Lessons Lost, by Alex Alexiev of the Center for Security Policy (see Links at the right).

Alexiev discusses England’s failure to face the Islamic threat in its mist. Blaming the attacks of 7/7 and 7/21 on a “few misguided individuals,” the official governmental and media spokesmen see only the tip of the iceberg. “Islamic extremism has a large and growing following in Great Britain and Europe beyond. Indeed, Islamism, the fascist-like ideology that motivates it, is rapidly becoming the dominant idiom in Muslim communities throughout Western Europe.” But such a consideration is suppressed “by stifling political correctness and multicultural nostrums.”

Al Qaeda is only one small operator in a vast ideological movement. Alexiev reviews the Deobandi movement in Pakistan and their role behind the Taliban, Jihadi madrassas, etc. “In the United Kingdom, the Deobandis have pretty much taken over the South Asian Muslim establishment.” “A Deobandi-influenced movement, the Tablighis, who number in the millions, have become a premier recruiting agency for jihad worldwide while pretending to be pietistic and apolitical.” Another Islamist movement active in England is Ahle Hadith, followers of Mawdudi, a Pakistani movement funded by Saudi Arabia.

Alexiev continues, “however successful we are in destroying specific terrorist groups and individuals, the job will never be finished as long as the infrastructures of Islamism continue to churn out fanatics much faster than they could be neutralized.” He says, “It is the simple fact that today’s radical Islam is not about religion but about political sedition, subversion and incitement to violence and terror.” Actually, he doesn’t understand that Islam was founded as a political ideology as well as a religion. Part of this reflects his Western view of religion. Still, he understands that we face a political movement. And he’s right that, “Islamism is essentially a totalitarian political ideology much like its 20th century predecessors Nazism and communism. 'Infidels' thus become just another category of subhumans to be exterminated, just like Jews and Slavic untermenshen were for the Nazis and the 'class enemy' was for the communists.”

We fail to face the extent of the problem. “Pakistan has been transformed into an international haven of extremism and terrorism with thousands of jihadist madrassas, dozens of terrorist training camps and assorted centers of Islamist indoctrination.” It has gotten worse under Musharaf and “the worldwide growth of violent Islamism would simply not have occurred without the extraordinary involvement of Saudi Arabia in cultivating it at each and every stage. … This rather than Al Qaeda represents an existential threat to our civilization. … Worse still, the West still operates under the delusion that the likes of Saud’s kingdom and Musharaf’s duplicitous regime are somehow our strategic allies.”

It's the Religion, Stupid

Victor Davis Hanson says what few people have the guts to say: (a) the terrorists are motivated by their religious ideology, (b) funded by the Saudis, (c) willing to collaborate with secular Arab-fascists, (d) hate Jews and non-Muslims regardless of “grievances,” and (e) systematically feign being offended to manipulate over-sensitive politically-correct Westerners.

We’ve talked about all of these issues.

“It’s the religion, stupid.”

Islamic militancy represents a return to Islam which is not a response to our foreign policy, but a quest to re-establish original Islam as found in the Koran and Hadith. The attack of 9/11 was a purely religious act that was cheered throughout the Islamic world for just that reason.

They are the problem.

Jihadists enter our country with ease. They are funded by Saudi Arabia who we refuse to treat as the enemy. The Saudi reach is worldwide - including Europe. We continue to stigmatize anyone who even suggests Islam may be part of the problem. Hollywood casts Muslims as victims of our prejudice while we are demonized as having created Gulags. As they burn our flag, we are expected to show respect for their war manual … I mean holy book. Their irrational hate is never mentioned (unless to hint that we are worthy of that hate). Instead, we are damned as having pathological hate for the “other.”

Both left and right are in denial.

The left belittles the Islamic threat and sees Bush as the villain in today’s world. One has little hope for the left but even conservatives fail to face the threat over and over and over. The conservatives’ superficial approach fails to understand the roll of ideology and the deep cultural change that’s required for any lasting and stable democracy. But some conservatives are OK with an elected Islamic-theocracy.

We fail to acknowledge our moral superiority.

In past wars we were clear about our moral standing in the struggle. We called barbarity evil when we faced it – but can't even raise the question now. Apparently, there is a taboo against our taking pride in our country’s achievements and finding fault with their failures. Moral relativism is undercutting our efforts to rally our nation and sustain our spirit. The gratuitous respect given our savage enemy is becoming such a farce that the public is silently becoming disgusted. And that disgust grows in proportion to the exhortations that we bow down to this pathetic warrior religion.

Well, perhaps Victor didn't go quite this far ... yet.

Three Card Mohammad

During the last decade Muslims have been involved in violence in virtually every corner of the world: Manhattan, Madrid, Israel, India, Russia, Holland, Nigeria, Sudan, Cyprus, Kosovo, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, East Timor, and the Philippines – just to name a few off the top of my head. Islam plays a role in this violence in almost all cases. Yet, the level of discourse remains on the superficial level with an absurd banality that makes it more than obscene. “You can’t blame that on Islam because it’s only a few bad apples.” “Not all Muslims are terrorists.” “What about the violent people who aren’t Muslims?”

These kinds of remarks roll off people’s tongue as if they were profound self-evident truths known by even the simplest-minded everyday Joe. But what if someone said the following: “Sixty years ago, not all Nazis killed Jews, don’t over generalize.” “A hundred years ago, not all southern racists lynched blacks – it’s only a few bad applies.” That’s different, you say? “Nazism preaches such things. Racists harbor vicious hate that makes possible the atmosphere of lynching.” And, of course, it would be right to point that out.

But to point to Islam’s nature – its doctrines and history – leaves most people uncomfortable. Most would rather recede to the level of superficial blather. You’ll hear that Islam is just like Christianity, by people who’ve never read a book on Islam. You’ll be told that poverty, psychology, imperialism, male dominance, arid climate and a host of other standard factors are the real or “root causes” - religion being only a cover. Religious ideas – or any ideas – don’t really matter; this principle we are assured is the right … idea on the matter.

One tires of explaining the obvious. However, there is one subtle trick that traps many who try to discuss Islam’s inherent problems. This is a bait-and-switch game. One that moves the focus from the ideology of Islam to the demographic group: Muslims. Islam is understood by analyzing the belief system and asking what would that mean in practice? Muslims, as a nominal demographic group, includes those who practice the religion but it also includes those who merely label themselves “Muslim” out of tradition, respect for family, or fear of being killed as an apostate. Those who are lax or lapsed don’t embody the jihadist practice. And that’s good, of course.

Thus, when you point out that the life of Mohammad – a man who slaughtered, plundered, terrorized, conquered and oppressed – is a harmful example that inspires some Muslims to violence and viciousness, beware of the bait-and-switch: “But not all Muslims are like that.” Now we are focused on the nominal group – not the ideology and its effect when practiced.

If you read about the irrational hate taught in Saudi schools, spewed by religious authorities in Egypt’s mosques, or shouted by religious fanatics in Iran, be ready for the bait-and-switch: “I had an Arab taxi driver the other day who was very helpful.” Don’t laugh. I get this all the time. People mention individual Muslims, who they’ve met, and of course they find they’re normal everyday human beings. By the way, the majority of Arab-Americans are Christian.

The bait-and-switch is an attempt to make you look silly by turning your attention from vicious ideologies to innocuous members of a nominal demographic group. If you remain in the attack mode, you’ll just look stupid. And that’s the hope! By singling out harmless people unfairly, you’ll discredit your analysis. “You can’t say that about 1.2 billion people,” you’ll be told. Of course, there’s virtually nothing you can say about a billion people that goes beyond the superficial.

This game is not new. It was done with communism. “Oh, don’t judge by Stalin; he’s just one bad apple that’s hijacked communism.” After Mao, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, and others, this line wore thin. Over 100 million people died because of communism and a billion more enslaved. It wasn’t an accident. It goes to the very core of the collectivist philosophy that individuals can be disposed of for the greater good of the whole; the ends justify the means.

During the days when intellectuals were in denial about communism you could read the apologetics in magazines like The New Republic (Jan 1940) that denied that Stalin was a reflection of communism. It was “absurd to identify 170,000,000 people with one man,” referring to the people within Russia living under communism and the vicious dictator who ruled over them. But such a demographic observation doesn’t address the failures of communism. Indeed, the editors remained respectful of what they believed were economic progress and positive changes under communism’s first 23 years.

During the 1950s, it was the communists and their fellow travelers who wanted the focus to turn from the ideology and its practice to the individuals – some who were naïve. The idea was to make accusations of “communist” look stupid. Thus, when it turned out that Lucy Ball, as a young woman, enrolled in the Communist Party to please her grandmother (or aunt), the notion that this beloved women could be harmful made it seem silly to even raise questions about communism. Hollywood still uses this tactic to this very day.

However, communism has turned out to be the most destructive social movement in human history. Looking at individuals who may not embody the evil doesn’t change the nature of the horrors of the twentieth century under communist rule.

We need to do two things. We must face the threat of Islam but we must not allow ourselves to demonize a nominal demographic group. Justice requires that we give what is due: to expose what is vicious and praise what is benevolent. Moral integrity requires that we speak out to warn of the dangers that are and respect those who are harmless.

If we fail to face evil, we will suffer. If we exceed our mark and attack the innocent, we become fools and discredit our cause. Don’t fall for the bait-and-switch. Focus on the ideology and its meaning and those that actually put evil idea in practice. There’s much to discuss and learn and we must prepare ourselves to fight this war effectively.