'Drive them out': Trump sends message to Muslims on terrorism

I am far from the only one to make the observation that the mainstream media in the US are in throes of the Trump Derangement Syndrome - a mutation, if you will, of the Putin Derangement Syndrome diagnosed a decade back - and treating everything the 45th POTUS does with alarm and contempt irrespective of what it is, simply because he is the one doing it.

Thus the headlines about his trip to Saudi Arabia are filled with nitpicking about one particular phrase he didn't say, the multi-billion weapons deal with a country the media suddenly discovered was waging a war on Yemen (having not given a damn about said war before January 20, 2017), and obsessing about his daughter and son-in-law yet again.

FULL SPEECH: President Trump delivers speech to Muslim leaders in Saudi Arabia https://t.co/62boIRKJsT pic.twitter.com/xY6SABYcsy

— The Hill (@thehill) May 21, 2017

Therefore I was surprised to see The Hill post a full transcript of Trump's speech, and even more surprised to read what was in it:

America is a sovereign nation and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership—based on shared interests and values—to pursue a better future for us all.

[...]

Young Muslim boys and girls should be able to grow up free from fear, safe from violence, and innocent of hatred. And young Muslim men and women should have the chance to build a new era of prosperity for themselves and their peoples.

With God’s help, this summit will mark the beginning of the end for those who practice terror and spread its vile creed. At the same time, we pray this special gathering may someday be remembered as the beginning of peace in the Middle East—and maybe, even all over the world.

But this future can only be achieved through defeating terrorism and the ideology that drives it.

[...]

There can be no coexistence with this violence. There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it.

Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith.

Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.

[...]

This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations.

This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it.

This is a battle between Good and Evil.

[...]

But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.

It is a choice between two futures—and it is a choice America CANNOT make for you.

A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and

DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH.

[...]

Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory – piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED.

[...]

Starving terrorists of their territory, their funding, and the false allure of their craven ideology, will be the basis for defeating them.

So much for him being 'Islamophobic' or 'bowing down' to terrorism.

And while he accused Iran of being the ultimate sponsor of terrorism - disingenuous in the least, because it's Iran and Hezbollah doing a lion's share of fighting against ISIS, which the previous US government tacitly endorsed as a way to "regime change" in Syria - that makes it doubly hard for the Gulf Arabs to disregard his message, seeing as how they've been harping about "Iranian aggression" for years.

And if they do shrug off his offer (which I suspect they will), that just makes it clear which side they are on. After decades of pretending the problem didn't exist, finally, some clarity.

Macedonia - what gives?

Roughly three weeks ago, protests began against the government in Macedonia (FYROM). The folks protesting said the government was "corrupt" and spying on them. Big surprise, I figured - like the rest of the Balkans, the regime in Skopje is run by a vassal of Washington, so what else were they expecting?

But then these opposition activists ignored the Albanian terrorists - who came in from Kosovo and tried to take over a village, then seemed surprised when Macedonian police and military actually dared attack and kill a bunch of them (who were later given heroes' funerals in "Kosovo", to wit).

In fact, these protesters claimed the government had staged the whole thing as a way to defeat the protests! So I looked into the whole thing a bit, and found an all too familiar pattern. Soros, NED, "human rights activists," an opposition politician polling terribly but crusading against "corruption," the fact that the government favored a Russian-backed pipeline (can't have that, oh no)...

Then there was the hashtag. My knowledge of the language spoken in Macedonia (FYROM) is a little rusty, but I thought it weird that the hashtag they were using was "#протестирам" (or even "#protestiram" for reasons unfathomable; unlike the occupied Serbs, I was not aware that even in the wildest self-hating fantasies the Macedonians would give up on Cyrillic).

I looked up the Macedonian phrases for "I protest" (протестираат) and "we protest" (протестираме). Neither matched.  So what does the word actually mean in Macedonian? Is it even Macedonian at all?

To me, it sounds like a foreign consultant picked something that maybe sounded Macedonian-ish, but was based on their knowledge of "Croatian" (a dialect most Westerners who bother studying the region tend to learn). Except they goofed, since in actual modern Croatian, the word for protest is "prosvjed," so the proper form would have been "prosvjedujem/prosvjedujemo."

I can't be sure, though. I was ready to reach out and ask, to borrow a phrase, "I'm confused. Can somebody help me?"

But then today, I saw this from a "media fact-checker" backing the protesters.

Defending #Mariupol is admirable/breathtaking task. Task legends are made of. My support for #Ukraine. #Macedonia http://t.co/Ouql9hFA4K

— Vladimir Petreski (@VPetreski) June 7, 2015

Lavishes praise on the Banderite regime in Ukraine, cites Interpreter as the authoritative source,  in another tweet praises Soros for "helping" Macedonia - and oh, funded by USAID. Greeaat.

Let's say I'm much less confused now.

(see Disclaimer at top right of page)

Uncivilized

Yesterday, three masked men - which the French government and media have identified as French-born Algerians - attacked the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and murdered 10 employees (deliberately targeting the magazine's cartoonists). They also killed two police officers on the scene, one of whom was reportedly named Ahmed - so, a French Muslim.

The bodies of the slain have hardly gone cold before the Narrative Wars began. For some, this was a vile act of Islamic terror, signaling the need to defend the West from jihad. Far enough - except that many of these very people have been allied with jihadists and terrorists for decades, in places like Afghanistan, Bosnia, Serbia ("Kosovo" and "Sanjak"), Russia (Chechnya, Dagestan) and more recently, Libya and Syria. The way they spun it, these were the "good" jihadists, attacking the "enemies" of the West - you know, those folks who refused to submit to demands for unconditional surrender of their independence, economies, values, societies, faiths and traditions to the bankers, market speculators and the false god of Multiculturalism.

In other words, I'll believe the West is fighting against the jihad when I see it.

"Flag" Against Football

To hear the Western media tell it, the sight of an Albanian flag sent Serbs into paroxysms of rage at a soccer (football, in the non-US world) match with Albania yesterday, and the game was called off amid the riot.

Serbian player Stefan Mitrović calmly folding the Greater Albania banner, flown by a drone
during last night's Euro 2016 qualifier between Serbia and Albania in Belgrade (photo: mondo.rs) 

Here is what actually happened: a drone (!) with a banner depicting the Nazi-allied "Greater Albania" flew onto the pitch. The British referee halted the game. A Serbian player grabbed the banner and began to fold it, whereupon the Albanian players attacked him. Outraged Serbian fans began throwing objects onto the pitch. Both the Serbian players and the police then shielded the Albanians and escorted them off the field until the disruption was sorted out. After the Albanians refused every reasonable offer to continue or reschedule the match, the game was abandoned.

The Serbian Football Association (FSS) has issued an official statement explaining the events:

Eppur si muove

I chose not to write a special essay on the anniversary of 9/11. What would be the point?

I've said everything I've cared to say over the past thirteen years - how one cannot fight terrorism and support it at the same time, how there are no "good" terrorists just because they currently serve one's agenda, how it's madness to appease jihadists in hopes of earning their gratitude, etc. etc. Go through the posts tagged 9/11 if you wish, and see for yourselves whether the questions I've posed are not just as relevant today as a year ago, or five, or ten.

And I stand by my contention that there was never any war on terror(ism): the grand crusade was all about power. Don't believe me? Listen to the Emperor's speech declaring war on ISIS.

Proving that the brevity of Twitter can be the soul of wit, someone named "Stalingrad & Poorski" summarized the speech thus:

POTUS Summary: We'll be bombing a sovereign nation (Syria) We'll be arming terrorist groups while fighting them. #Ref Economy is Great
— Stalingrad & Poorski (@Stalingrad_Poor) September 11, 2014

Justin Raimondo rightly called the speech a "dreary peroration exuding a skunk-like aura of insincerity" and correctly identifies it as a back-door attempt to effect "regime change" in Syria. Make no mistake, that is what "assistance to the Syrian opposition" really means. By the by, the mythical "Syrian opposition" is basically an adjunct of ISIS!

Jan Oberg dubbed the speech a "record low in terms of moral and intellectual analysis," and dwelt on the last two minutes of "everything is fine" (continuing the theme of protesting too much): "A combination of unbearable self-praise, slight megalomania and denial of the changing U.S. role in our changing world."

It's like watching the coyote from the old cartoons, chasing the road-runner bird over a chasm. Once he realizes he's running on air - but not a moment sooner - he immediately plummets to the ground. It now appears as if the Imperial government has convinced itself that so long as it pays no attention to the chasm, the law of gravity does not apply.

Newsflash: it does. 

Beslan Remembered

September 1, 2004: first day of school in Beslan, in the Russian Federation's Republic of North Ossetia. Hundreds of children, parents and teachers were trapped by Western-backed jihadists in Elementary School #1, stripped to their underwear, and held hostage for almost three days.

When Russian security forces attempted to rescue the hostages, the terrorists began the killing they had planned all along: 334 hostages were killed, including 186 children. Only one of the terrorists was captured alive; he is serving a life sentence in a Russian prison, unrepentant.

"Memory Wall" at the School Number One (source)

Beslan was the beginning of the end for jihadists in Chechnya. One by one, jihadists leaders were hunted down and killed: Shamil Basayev, who ordered the attack, died in an explosion in 2006. Today, Chechens under Ramzan Kadyrov are some of the most fiercely loyal Russian citizens.

But those who backed the Chechen jihad have neither been forgotten, nor forgiven.

The East Remembers.

About That Gratitude, Again

I have written before on the downright idiotic belief of the Imperial establishment that their white-knighting around the world on behalf of jihadists would result in gratitude. Except, you know, not.

In fact, there is a lengthy list of jihadists attacks perpetrated by those very "secular, modern, democratic, etc." Muslims from the Balkans the Empire has waged several wars to "save" or "liberate" - and it keeps growing.

Two commenters just sent in links to a developing story from southern Turkey. It appears that a Turkish patrol was ambushed on a highway near the Syrian border, and two soldiers and a policeman were killed. The Turks have captured three suspects, described as "two Albanians and a Kosovan [sic]" who were likely fighting the anti-government jihad in Syria. Which, by the way, Turkey has supported.

Here is a Macedonian news agency quoting the AFP quoting Turkey's Interior Minister:

Two Albanians and a Kosovan have been arrested for a suspected 'terror' attack that claimed the lives of two soldiers and a policeman in southern Turkey, Interior Minister Efgan Ala said Friday, AFP reports.

And here is that AFP story, as posted by Lebanon's Daily Star:

Two Albanians and a man from Kosovo have been arrested for a suspected "terror" attack that claimed the lives of two soldiers and a policeman in southern Turkey, Interior Minister Efgan Ala said Friday.

The three men were arrested after Thursday's attack, in which assailants opened fire on security forces carrying out a highway patrol near the town of Ulukisla, close to the Syrian border.

"The suspects captured were two citizens of Albania and the third from Kosovo," the official Anatolia news agency quoted Ala as saying.

Albania's interior ministry, however, denied that any of those arrested were Albanian citizens.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had labelled the shooting a "vile act of terror" and said the three security officers killed were "martyrs".

Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay said the attackers had "a link with Syria", without giving further details.

Local media reported they were affiliated with militant Islamist organisations operating in Syria.

Recall that the Empire had arranged for the Syrian "rebels" to "train" with the KLA back in 2012. And there are obviously Albanian (and Bosnian) jihadists fighting for the "rebels", as reports keep coming in about many of them reaching their goal of martyrdom (i.e. getting killed). Meanwhile, Turkey has not only backed the jihad in Syria, but also the Muslims of Bosnia and the "Kosovian" Albanians in their claims on Serb territory.

Perhaps this instance of Albanian jihadists biting the hand that fed them might cause the Turks to reconsider their position, if not on the Syrian jihad then "Kosovistan." But I'm not holding my breath.

From Beslan to Boston

Some of my readers may remember an essay from several years ago in which I explained why I refuse to be called a journalist. Seeing the coverage of the Boston Marathon massacre only fortified me in that conviction. I hope the mainstream media that fingered the wrong suspects, even going so far as to publish their names and photos, enjoys the libel suits they so richly deserve.

There were even some who hoped (!) the suspect would be "a white American", because that would better serve their political agenda. The irony of their wish-fulfillment, after a fashion, is why I believe the universe isn't random: the suspected terrorists really were "white Americans", though only in the most technical sense. The brothers Tsarnaev came to the U.S. from Chechnya.

For those who can't tell Chechnya apart from the Czech Republic, the latter is a mostly Catholic country in central Europe, while the former is a region of Russia in the north Caucasus. A tribal society with a tradition of mountain banditry, the Chechens launched a war of independence against Yeltsin's Russia in 1991. They successfully defeated the crumbling Soviet army and established an "Islamic Republic of Ichkeria", proceeding to engage in abductions for ransom, sex slavery, drug running and terrorism. In this, they had the support of a veritable who's who of Imperial policymakers.

Following NATO's 1999 attack on Serbia, however, the mood in Moscow changed. After the Chechens tried invading the neighboring region of Dagestan, Russian troops crushed the rebellion. The jihad, however, continued.

And that's the problem. What happened in Boston was horrifying, absolutely. But it's been happening to Russians for years, and there has been not a shred of sympathy from the American political class, the media, or the (admittedly ignorant) general public. To mention just a few examples:

- October 2002, Chechen terrorists hold hostage a Moscow theater, during a popular stage play. 130 hostages die during the rescue.

- September 2004, Chechen terrorists seize and hold hostage 1100 children, teachers and parents in an elementary school in Beslan, North Ossetia. After two days of horror, most of the terrorists are killed in a rescue, but not before murdering 334 civilians, 156 of them children.

- January 2011, a jihadist belonging to the Chechen terrorist movement blows himself up at Moscow's busy Domodedovo airport, killing 37 and injuring 173.

Yet all that came from Washington were condemnations of Moscow's "human rights violations" in the Caucasus. Terrorists? Surely you jest: terrorists are only those who attack Americans.

As I commented on Ilana Mercer's blog, the Chechen identity of the bombing suspects threatens to mess with the Narrative of evil Russians (or Serbs) oppressing the good, innocent Chechens, "Bosnians" or "Kosovars." In that Narrative, Islam is a "religion of peace", and if America continues to champion Islamic causes, Muslims will be grateful and embrace democracy. Or not.

To this end, terrorism perpetrated by the "designated victims" is habitually swept under the rug. Bosnian Muslim Sulejman Talovic shoots up a Salt Lake City mall and is given a jihadist funeral, but the official investigation declares "motive unknown." Albanian Arid Uka attacks a bus of U.S. soldiers at the Frankfurt airport? Albanians "love America", the mainstream media declare. Move along, nothing to see here. A Bosnian Muslim jihadist attacks the U.S. embassy in downtown Sarajevo, and the senior State Department official brushes it off. Right on cue, I hear this morning (h/t Steve Sailer) that the New York Times ran a story pitying the poor Chechens.

Terrorism cannot be defeated. But terrorists can. The first step towards doing so is to stop enabling them, supporting them, cultivating them as a weapon against enemies real or imagined, and harboring the delusion that they can be controlled.

Tall order, I know.

Is it Jihad Yet?

photo: Beta

This is Mevlid Jasarevic, age 23, follower of the Salafi sect of Islam, who this afternoon opened fire on the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo, Bosnia. Jasarevic was subsequently shot and reportedly killed. [Clarification: Jasarevic was wounded and detained by the police.]

Because Jasarevic is from Novi Pazar, a town in Serbia, odds are the mainstream Western media will describe this as a "Serbian attack", or at least identify him as "Serbian citizen." This would be horribly misleading, of course, but that hasn't stopped them before.

Here are some things to keep in mind here, before the spin distorts them:

• Salafi missionaries came to Bosnia during the war, with tacit approval and even assistance of the U.S., to get the "wayward" Bosnian Muslims in line and wage jihad against the Serb and Croat "infidels."
• There are 150,000 or so Muslims in the Raska region of southwestern Serbia (which they call "Sanjak", a term going back to Ottoman days). Their religious leader, mufti Muamer Zukorlic, was appointed by the top Islamic cleric of Bosnia and has been stirring up trouble and preaching violence and hate for several years. In this, he enjoys the support of many foreign governments ("Friends of Sanjak"), including the U.S.
• Jasarevic may technically be a citizen of Serbia, but he is wanted there on charges of terrorism. He left Serbia last year, and settled in the Salafi commune of Gornja Maoca in northern Bosnia. Until it was ethnically cleansed during the Bosnian War, it used to be a Serb village called Karavlasi.

In addition to terrorizing any Christians (Serbs or Croats) they may come across, the Salafi frequently harass ordinary Bosnian Muslims, who by and large follow the Hanafi school of Islam. The Hanafi approach accepts local customs and is what made coexistence with Christians in the past possible in the first place. Salafists dismiss this as heresy and preach absolute intolerance of any who do not follow their ways.

Anyway, just watch: Jasarevic will be described as a lone lunatic, his motives will be "unknown", and there will be no mention of jihad or Islamic terrorism. The notion that the Salafists in Bosnia may be nurturing terrorists who threaten American lives runs counter to the mainstream narrative of innocent Muslims being victims of evil Serbs, and is therefore thoughtcrime.

Update (10/31/2011): Julia Gorin has a post up about this and other jihadist attacks, with links. Lots of links.

Don't You Dare Call It a Victory

So the Emperor announced breathlessly last night that Enemy of the State #1 has been hunted down and killed. Osama Bin Laden is no more. There was a jubilant crowd in front of the White House (I second Ilana Mercer's thoughts on how unseemly that was), and much rejoicing in the morning papers.

Whatever.

Don't get me wrong, I despise terrorists of any stripe, and oppose jihad on principle as well as in practice. But so many things about this takedown reek of stupidity, malice, or both, that I'm hard pressed to feel jubilant rather than contemptuous. First off, OBL was allegedly hiding in a compound right in the middle of a town housing the Pakistani high command and military academies - quite literally under the very nose of Empire's self-declared principal ally. Did the Pakistani military, intelligence and government know his whereabouts? If yes, that makes them liars; if not, hugely incompetent.

Then there is the whole circus of dumping his body into the sea, before any independent confirmation of his identity could be obtained. Supposedly, this was done to avoid making his grave a terrorist pilgrimage site (so why not bury him at the remote U.S. base of Diego Garcia, as Steve Sailer sensibly suggested?) and to honor Muslim religious sensibilities by giving Osama a quick burial. Except burials at sea offend those very sensibilities. Oops.

Anyway, Bin Laden is dead. That ought to mean that 9/11 is finally avenged. Outstanding news! But do you expect His Most Elevated Majesty Barack I the Blessed, Bringer of Hope and Change, to order the troops back from Afghanistan, and Iraq while at it, declare a victory and have a ticker-tape parade? Don't be silly.

Because, for all his demonstrable evil, Bin Laden was nothing more than a convenient excuse. The war was never about him, or his sad bunch of fanatical followers, or jihad, or terrorism in general. Bush the Lesser so much as admitted to it, years ago.

It has been about the Empire all along. About power. Which is why it cannot end. Not now. Not ever. Until the Empire self-destructs, anyway.

So don't you dare call this a victory. When this whole mess started, Bin Laden said exactly what he intended to do: involve America in numerous wars and make it bleed itself to death. He meant to win by losing. Well, didn't he?

I can almost hear him, cackling maniacally, all the way to Hell.

Saakashvili's Agenda

A suicide attack on a crowd at a public place, Monday's bombing of the Domodedovo airport had all the trademarks of a jihadist operation. Several comments on my essay about it, however, cautioned that one had to make a distinction between actual jihadists, and terrorists in the service of Empire.

Then Prime Minister Putin made a enigmatic statement yesterday that the attack was not connected to Chechnya. Were the terrorists, as the Russophobic Washington Post speculated, from Ingushetia or Dagestan instead? Could it have been, as Lilia Shevtsova of Carnegie's Moscow office speculated for the WaPo the other day, a "Russian nationalist"? (Shevtsova seems like a Russian analogue of Serbia's Sonja Biserko and Natasa Kandic, so I didn't take her seriously.)

Enter Mikhail Saakashvili, the tie-chewing American satrap of Georgia, gloating over the attack and calling it "payback" for the August 2008 humiliation Moscow's border garrison inflicted on his NATO-trained military.

Yet from his remarks to the The Independent, it seems Saakashvili was just enjoying the opportunity to stick it to Moscow, rather than claiming responsibility for the attack or knowing who was behind it. Crass, sure. But even a bumbling idiot such as Saakashvili ought to know that offering oneself up as a possible perpetrator of a terrorist attack against Russia - or cheering the terrorists on, for that matter - is pure idiocy. Especially since Putin told him that Moscow would "crush" the terrorists "like cockroaches."

So, what is he trying to accomplish, then?

Terrorism and Jihad

As I was waiting in the RT studio this morning, to comment on the PACE considerations of the Marty report (which ended up being adopted, by an overwhelming majority vote), I heard about a poll they were conducting in the aftermath of the Domodedovo Airport bombing. Something like 60% of the respondents said they did not believe terrorism could be defeated.

They are right. Because, you see, terrorism can't be defeated. But terrorists can.

The purpose of terrorism is to effect coercion through instilling fear (Latin: terror). Governments routinely use coercion, and particularly bad ones believe that the only reason people obey laws is the fear of consequences (oderint dum metuant and all). How is that not terrorism? Well, there's an element of hypocrisy involved, to be sure. Just as printing money at home is a felony, but when the Federal Reserve does it it's called "quantitative easing."

There is one distinction, I suppose. Very few governments resort to arbitrary arrests and executions (and once they do, they usually aren't around for long thereafter). Terrorists kill randomly. By doing so, they don't just challenge government's monopoly of force, but strike at the very heart of a government's existence. The primary purpose of a state, you'll recall, is to provide security. This is why governments the world over have a rule not to negotiate with terrorists. If they do, they undermine their own raison d'etre.

Of course, if the terrorists are fighting for something that the government can afford to give up, accommodation eventually happens. And let's not forget that in today's world, you're only a terrorist if you dare attack the "good guys" (i.e. us). If you are bombing, killing or maiming "them" (i.e. others, the designated enemy), you become a "guerrilla" or "rebel" or "freedom fighter." If you secure support of a powerful state, you can even carve out a state of your own, declare yourself prime minister or president, and make quite a comfortable living practicing criminal activities with impunity.

Though nothing has been confirmed just yet, the prime suspects in the bombing of Domodedovo airport yesterday are members of a jihadist organization from the north Caucasus. Russophobes of all stripes will no doubt suggest that the best course for Moscow would be to withdraw from the area. These are the same people who would never contemplate, much less condone, American withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan - even though these are countries half the world away that Washington chose to invade, while Chechnya is part of Russia's own territory.

They also ignore the fact that Moscow actually did leave the Chechens alone. Russian troops retreated from the region in 1996, leaving it at the mercy of jihadists. Did they settle down and build a peaceful, prosperous nation? No - they made Chechnya into a black hole of jihadist banditry, and began invading the surrounding areas.

If the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing humanity he did not exist, then the greatest service Bush the Lesser ever did to the Prince of Lies was invading Iraq. By doing so, he helped create a perception that there was no such thing as jihad, and that the principal dynamo of Muslim grievance was the occupation. Yes, it plays a part. And so does the existence of Israel (the "occupation of Palestine" actually refers not to the territories taken in 1967 from Jordan and Egypt - but to the existence of Israel, period). But where was Israel in 1453, when Mehmet II sacked Constantinople? Where was "Crusader aggression" in 732, when Charles Martel stopped the Muslims at Tours? That, by the way, is in France - a long way from Arabia.

We're looking at two different things here, then. One is the imperial impulse in Washington (or London before that), which results in murderous overseas adventures and the backlash they inspire. The other is the commandment to the followers of Mohammed's teachings to spread the faith by fire and sword and slay the infidel wherever they find them. Many people ignore one of these aspects, trying to explain the world strictly through the prism of the other. That's a mistake.

This is why Afghanistan is not Kosovo, and why Chechnya is not Iraq. Picking a fight halfway around the world is not the same as having to defend your own life, at your own doorstep. Of course, in the world according to Emperors on the Potomac, the latter is a crime and the former is statesmanship.

In the ensuing confusion, jihad advances.

Be Very Afraid...

A lot is being said and written today about the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. Professional panic-mongers and witch-hunters are once again screaming about "right-wing extremists" and warning that OKC could happen again. Yet the impression I get is that this noise has less (if anything) to do with the 168 dead and 600 injured in Oklahoma City 15 years ago, and more with the efforts of the government to deflect criticism by painting those who disagree with it as lunatics and potential terrorists.

Anthony Gregory of LRC puts it into perspective:

Seventeen years ago in 1993, the federal government did in fact murder dozens of Americans who were no threat to anyone. The same government has in fact violated the rights of American citizens, rounded people into concentration camps, silenced and infiltrated politically peaceful groups, conspired against the people in numerous ways, drugged, poisoned and withheld medicine from Americans without their knowing, lied repeatedly about war and serious law enforcement matters, jailed people without due process, imposed martial law on segments of the domestic population, seized guns from law-abiding gunowners, broken down American doors and held scared children at gunpoint, planned the creation of extralegal judicial institutions to process American citizens, targeted political enemies with the IRS and other police agencies, forced Americans to labor and even kill and die under threat of imprisonment, overseen the largest prison system in the world, shoveled trillions of borrowed dollars to corrupt financial institutions and killed millions of civilians abroad – all in the lifetime of many who are still alive. The U.S. police state has in fact been growing since 9/11 and even before – and Obama has done nothing to stem its growth. On the contrary, he has continued the mix of economic fascism, imperialism, surveillance and lawless detention policy that characterized the Bush years.

Indeed, the most dangerous rightwing extremist in my lifetime was George W. Bush. Obama is following in his footsteps. That so many Americans are more frightened of rightwingers out of power than in power – more bothered by conservatives who hate Washington than those who control or want to control it – and more offended by anti-government rhetoric than the Democratic president continuing the policies they claimed to hate under Republican rule – shows how little they have learned from Waco and all that has happened since.

Read the rest of the essay at LewRockwell.com.

Freedom is safe!

Of all the reactions to the "underwear bomb" plot (which I actually predicted back in 2006), I liked Fred Reed's the most. I haven't laughed so hard since I re-read some of Ephraim Kishon's short stories a couple years back. I don't know if Reed has ever read Kishon, but "The Price of Freedom" captured his style perfectly: a seemingly normal sequence of events quickly spinning into patently absurd without anyone batting an eyelash, told in a perfectly nonplussed manner.

It would be funnier still if it weren't almost entirely true.

Jihad at Fort Hood

The story of the murders at Fort Hood is still developing.

Base commander, Lt. Gen Bob Cone, told CBS (video) that there are "unconfirmed reports" that Major Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter, was saying "Allah Akbar" during his methodical killing spree yesterday.

Fox News spoke to Hasan's cousin, who said that Hasan wanted to get out of the Army before being deployed (whether to Iraq or Afghanistan remains unclear).

Now, mind you, this is the mainstream media. After years and years of seeing them lie about the Balkans, if they said the sky was blue I'd have to verify it myself . So far, the spin is directed at talking up the soldiers' courage under fire. The fact that Major Hasan was a disgruntled Muslim is grudgingly noted, but not really dwelt upon. Watch the CBS reporter sigh when Gen. Cone mentions "Allah Akbar," then change the subject.

Another segment of the Fox News story was intriguing to me. Here's a quote from Hasan's former colleague, retired Colonel Terry Lee:

"He said maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor... At first we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently that wasn't the case. Other times he would make comments we shouldn't be in the war in the first place."

The very fact that Col. Lee thought that "standing up and fighting against the aggressor" could even possibly translate into "help[ing] the armed forces" reveals a disconnect from reality within the U.S. military. Was everyone in Ft. Hood oblivious to the fact that some Muslims view them as aggressors?

It boggles the mind.

How is this not terrorism?

From MSNBC:

A U.S. soldier opened fire Thursday at Fort Hood, Texas, killing at least 11 people and wounding 31 others, military officials said. The gunman was shot to death, and two others were in custody.

Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, commanding general of the Army’s III Corps, who confirmed the shootings, said the gunman used two handguns. NBC News’ Pete Williams reported that a U.S. official identified the gunman as Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan, who was 39 or 40.

Took them a while to ID the gunman, too. NBC doesn't spell it out, so it's up to me to point out the obvious: Maj. Hasan is a Muslim.

So, a Muslim opens fire at soldiers in one of the busiest Army bases, two other officers are in custody (no names, no explanation as to why), and yet a "senior Obama administration official told NBC News that the shootings could have been a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack and that there was no intelligence to suggest a plot against Fort Hood." (details as of 1800 hrs Eastern time, all emphasis added)

Sure, it could be something else, theoretically, but this just screams jihad. And if there is no "plot," how come two people are in custody? Lone nuts are usually, well, alone.

Now, I understand why the government would try and claim this wasn't terrorism. It's one thing to have a bunch of "roofers" from the "former Yugoslavia" plot an attack on Ft. Dix. But an Army Major going postal in Ft. Hood? How embarrassing.

How about the Trolley Square massacre in Salt Lake City, on Valentine's Day 2007? The investigators refused to even consider jihad as the possible motive, and the case was closed with "motive unknown." The shooter was buried in Bosnia at the expense of Salt Lake City residents who donated money to show they were sufficiently "multicultural" and "tolerant."

How many people remember the June 2009 attack on the recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark. by a certain Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad? It was hardly mentioned, amid the uproar about the shooting of an abortion doctor in Kansas. And when it did get mentioned, it was spun by the New York Times as no big deal ("bomb threats and vandalism against recruiting offices are not uncommon").

If we ignore it, it doesn't happen, right?

Right?

Don't you dare call it terrorism!

(cross-posted from Antiwar.com)

A Bosnian Muslim man was apprehended Monday as he tried to enter the U.S. embassy in Vienna, Austria with an explosive-laden backpack. Another Bosnian was arrested later Monday, suspected of being an accomplice.

It is nothing short of a miracle that the suspects were actually identified as “Bosnians” as opposed to “former Yugoslavs” or some such rubbish (as was the case with ethnic Albanians charged in the plot to attack Fort Dix earlier this year). Satisfied with this nod to the obvious, however, neither the Austrian government nor the media covering the event are willing to go any further. So the Austrians publicly state they “can’t say anything at the moment about a possible motive.” Indeed, Austria’s top cop (”general manager for public security”) Eric Buxbaum said “It is too early to speak of an Islamist background,” while Doris Edelbacher, identified by the AP as chief spokeswoman for Austria’s federal counterterrorism office, is said to have “played down speculation… that the thwarted attack may have been motivated by radical Islamic ideology.”

Because, you see, the wannabe-bomber and his handler were Bosnian Muslims, and that just can’t happen. The two suspects are Muslims? Check. There’s a jihadist imam in Graz, preaching jihad and murder of infidels? Check. The backpack bomb is the kind of device routinely used to blow up Israelis? Check. A Muslim prayer book is found in the backpack? Check. They are from where? Well, then, they can’t possibly be jihadists. Call off the search, boys, motive unknown.

What on earth could possibly be a motive for a jihad-style attack by a Muslim on a U.S. embassy? Jihad? Of course not! Out of the question! Never! Must be because… they didn’t process his visa request fast enough! That’s it! Perhaps he should sue the American government for causing him undue hardship; he wouldn’t be the first.

Already the mainstream press is saying that the main suspect has “sought psychiatric help” in the past, trying to suggest he was just a nutcase. Maybe there is something to it; but on the other hand, the fact that he panicked, threw the bomb away and tried to run, instead of blowing himself up, suggest that “Asim C.” is not mentally ill. I’m not so sure about those trying to spin his inept attempt at martyrdom as anything but.

"Terrorism? What terrorism?"

Just as one thinks things in the Balkans cannot possibly get any weirder, something comes along to prove otherwise.

Here's a one such find, via Slobodan-Milosevic.org: in mid-July, a leading Bosnian Muslim daily published a "news" story about the new official definition of terrorism in Bosnia, and its author.

According to Bakir Alispahić, a newly minted M.A., "so-called religious terrorism does not exist, and that therefore there can be no talk of Islamic terrorism."

Alispahić, once the top policeman for the Izetbegović regime, and later head of the Muslim government's intelligence agency (AID), was charged with terrorism in 2002 over "Pogorelica" - an AID-owned camp where Iranian agents were training Bosnian Muslim terrorists in 1996. A NATO raid uncovered "Iranian propaganda, terrorist training manuals, bomb making materials, and bombs disguised to look like children's toys."

He was acquitted after several key figures in the case were mysteriously killed. The Empire never pressed the "Pogorelica" issue, because exposing the Izetbegović regime's terrorist connections would interfere with its wartime propaganda of "Bosnians" as innocent victims of evil genocidal Serbs.

Adding insult to injury, Michael Bay's 1996 summer blockbuster "The Rock" opened with the protagonist dismantling a child's doll booby-trapped by fictional Serb terrorists...

But back to the "terrorism expert" Alispahić, who explained his motivation to Dnevni Avaz thus: "They are a result of my conviction that I was completely groundlessly accused of terrorism by certain circles. Had these forces managed to win and prove their accusations, my struggle and my contribution to the war effort, and ultimately the defence of our country would have been marred by terrorism, which never existed in Bosnia."

In other words, he defined himself out of terrorism and thus vindicated his efforts. "Scientific," indeed.

In the commission reviewing Alispahić's thesis were Smail Čekić (Muslim regime's leading "expert" on war crimes) and Nijaz Duraković (former chairman of the Bosnian Communist Party, who eventually rediscovered himself as a nationalist and joined Haris Silajdzic). Duraković told Avaz that "there is a tendency to declare B-H almost collectively terrorist, and the Bosniaks collectively Al-Qa'idah," so Alispahić's thesis ("proving" that neither could possibly be true) was so very important.

I was going to make a snarky comment about what passes for "political science" in Bosnia, when I realized that's precisely what this is: political science. Alispahić conjured a "scientific" definition to save his own miserable skin. Duraković and Čekić love it because it serves their agenda of defending "Bosniaks" from accusations of terrorism.

But Duraković's jibe about collectively labeling Bosnian Muslims as terrorists is disingenuous at best. There is no denying that terrorists were involved with the Bosnian Muslim jihad against Serbs and Croats, or that some Bosnian Muslims were terrorists, but insofar as I know, no one has ever called the entire Bosnian Muslim nation terrorist. Meanwhile, Duraković and other Muslim nationalist routinely label the entire Serb nation "genocidal." So Duraković was really engaging in projection here.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: so long as the Bosnian Muslims believe in their innocence and victimhood, and refuse to come to terms with the realities of the 1992-1995 war and the fundamental problem of Bosnia's existence (ethnic relations), there can and will be no peace in that country. As for terrorism, between Empire's denial and Muslims' own hypocrisy, Al-Qaeda appears to have a safe haven in Bosnia.

Jihad's Other Victims

During the 1992-95 civil war in Bosnia, hundreds of Islamic militants from all over the world came to fight for the "beleaguered Bosnians" in what they considered a part of the ongoing jihad against the infidels. Many stayed after the war's end, marrying local women and taking over ethnically cleansed villages, where they would establish theocratic communities based on Wahhabi Islamic teachings.

Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic wrote as early as 1970 (PDF) about the need to "re-Islamize" the Muslims as a way to improve their position in the world (Izetbegovic devoted a lot of space in his Islamic Declaration to the pathetic state of contemporary secular Muslim countries, comparing them most unfavorably with the former Ottoman Empire - a Caliphate, whose fall he blamed on the Western infidels). The Bosnian war provided him with an opportunity to put his ideas in practice. Izetbegovic's rejection of any agreement with the Bosnian Serbs started the war in the spring of 1992; his troops clashed with their erstwhile Croat allies from 1993 to 1994; and a portion of Muslims loyal to a rival politician in Western Bosnia were declared "traitors" and mercilessly repressed in 1995. Parallel to his efforts to establish a "Bosniak" nation, Izetbegovic and his followers sought to ensure its Islamic identity. Turkish and Arabic phrases that were once used only in religious context became commonplace; the new "Bosnian" language abounded with words borrowed from Turkish, Arabic and Persian, often resurrected from century-old linguistic oblivion; and new mosques appeared in every neighborhood.

In addition to their fighting prowess (which remains dubious), foreign mujahedin were one of the instruments of "re-islamization." Their integration into the "Bosnian Army" (ARBiH) enabled the Izetbegovic regime to transform it from a self-proclaimed "people's self-defense" force into a heavily Islamic organization. Thanks to universal conscription, the subsequently demobilized soldiers would come home more receptive to the message spread by immigrant imams from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and elsewhere in the Islamic world. As a side note, every Muslim soldier who died during the war was considered a "martyr" in a jihad, and given the appropriate burial. Izetbegovic himself is buried in a "martyrs' cemetery" in Sarajevo

After the war, hundreds of new mosques were built by foreign donors - most prominently Saudi Arabia - and the imams preaching there introduced a new, different version of Islam. Adherents to Wahhabi teachings were soon easily identified by long beards, distinctive headwear, and rolled-up trousers. The carefully nurtured atmosphere of hatred and mistrust of Bosnia's Serbs and Croats, coupled with a persecution complex and victim mentality (according to which the Bosnian Muslims were victims of "genocide" not just in the 1992-95 war, but multiple times in the 20th century, ever since the Ottomans were forced out), created fertile soil for widespread discontent. Jobless, frustrated men turned to the mosques, where the foreigners plied them with money and promises, if only they turned to the "true" faith.

From helping the "Bosnians" in their jihad against the Serbs and Croats, to recruiting "Bosnians" for the greater jihad in the West was but a small step. Mirsad Bektasevic, a.k.a. "Maximus," who was convicted earlier this year of a plot to conduct terrorist attacks against foreign embassies in Bosnia. Sulejman Talovic's rampage in Salt Lake City last month was in all likelihood an act of Islamic terrorism. Though Talovic was pitied by the American media as a victim of the Bosnian war (Americans even collected donations to fund Talovic's funeral; he was buried in Bosnia - as a martyr for the faith!), information that has surfaced recently indicates that he was in fact a jihadist, and that his shooting spree was a premeditated attack on "infidels" planned with the help of a "friend" at a nearby mosque. According to the young woman who claims to be Talovic's long-distance girlfriend, he had told her the night before the attack that tomorrow would be the "happiest day of his life."

Many Balkans Muslims, however, resent the heavy-handed attempts by the Wahhabis to impose their view of Islam as the only one allowed. There have actually been physical confrontations between the official Islamic clergy and the Wahhabis, both in Bosnia and in the Raska region of Serbia, which has a significant Muslim population. Last November, three people were injured in a shooting clash between the Wahhabis and traditional Muslims in Novi Pazar. And just last week, four men were arrested in Novi Pazar, when Serbian police raided a nearby Wahhabist camp and found weapons, explosives, and terrorist literature.

Serbia's leading expert on Wahhabi terrorism, Darko Trifunovic, was quoted by the Italian news service AKI on that occasion: "[T]here is no doubt that the main victims of the divisions in the Muslim community will be Muslims themselves."

With the well of coexistence with Serbs and Croats already deeply poisoned, fratricidal violence in Novi Pazar, and young Muslims being recruited for jihad across the world, it appears the bill is already coming due.

Random Airport Thoughts

I'm on my way to Bosnia again, on family business - though, being a workaholic, I fully intend to do some investigative analysis once there.

Right this moment, I'm sitting on the floor in the corner of the departure lounge of the Vienna Airport, the only place where one can find a free electrical outlet. Most people toting laptops keep them on for an hour or so at most. I have a three-hour layover. I'll be damned if I spend it watching the battery indicator.

I would have been outraged at this obvious oversight on part of the airport management, had I not learned better on my frequent trips to the Old Continent; thanks to their advanced cell phone networks, Europeans tend to use their mobile phones the way Americans use laptops. Besides, at least they do have free Wi-Fi. At the Dulles Airport in Washington, I was barely able to register a signal - for a pay-per-use T-Mobile network, ironically operated by Germans.

Flying in this day and age includes a set of humiliating "security" rituals one has to subject himself to in order to enter a departure concourse. Ever since the idiotic Richard Reed tried to set his shoes on fire, people are made to pad through the security checkpoints barefoot. We never did find out whether Reed's shoes were actually explosive or not. The shoeless requirement has recently been joined by the liquids restriction (3 oz. in the U.S., 100 ml in the E.U.), resulting from an alleged terror plot from this summer.

A thought occurred to me, seeing all the signs and warnings about the danger of toiletries. In order to keep winning, the jihadists don't have to carry out a single successful terrorist attack. Or even bother to try. All it takes is to feed some misinformation about theoretical plots using far-fetched and, frankly, ludicrous methods. Obsessed with "security," the Empire would obligingly react in the predictably paranoid fashion.

I can just imagine some two-bit jihadist "confessing" under torture the existence of "underwear bombs," and the resulting strip-searches of air travelers. Maybe the government "security" bureaucracies would start requiring all passengers to change into hospital gowns and disposable slippers, duly stocked at specialized concessions stores at airports (provided by Halliburton on a no-bid contract, perhaps?). Opportunities for humiliation are endless. The jihadist scum can just sit back and cackle at the stupid, gullible kuffar. Which they probably do already, come to think of it.

I'm all for actual security, but government bureaucracies are institutionally incapable of providing it. The sorry sight of shoeless travelers and baggies filled with toothpaste, lotions and perfume is demonstration enough.