Alan K. Henderson's Weblog

At OnIslam.net, five Muslim academics expressed their outrage at the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Dr. Tariq Ramadan and Sheikh Omar Suleiman issued generic religion-of-peace platitudes. Dr. Wael Shihab appealed to Sura 5:32: "[W]hosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind." On the surface, it seems many jihadi supporters would find vindication for the attacks in this sura, based on an the assumption that mocking Mohammed qualifies as "corruption" (or "mischief," in some translations). Lacking the Quranic version of a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, I can't tell you how that root Arabic word is commonly used.

Unlike the others, Drs. Khaled Hanafy and Yasir Qadhi seek to address a root issue: whether or not Islam prescribes punishment for mockery of Mohammed. Each claims that such mockery (and even direct harassment) is recorded in the Quran, and in no event did Mohammed ever order retaliation. This approach should be further expanded upon; if the claim is correct, it will be substantiated by a list of all the suras recording such prophet-mocking incidents.

But that addresses only a subset of Islamic terror attacks. Most commonly the terrorists just want to kill non-Muslims for being non-Muslims; Boko Haram serves as a classic example.

All modern jihadi movements operate under the assumptions that a) Mohammed instructed future generations of Muslims to wage war against infidels as long as there are unconquered infidels on Earth, and b) that Islam supports private parties not authorized by governments (i.e. vigilantes) to undertake such warfare. Does Islam support either of these principles? Both Muslims and non-Muslims say yes, both Muslims and non-Muslims say no.

This post will not seek to discern whose interpretations are correct. As a Christian and a humanitarian (the Muslim world historically lags behind the West re human rights) I would prefer that Islam just go away, but it isn't, so the next best thing to hope for is the defeat of the jihadi view in the war on ideas. Unfortunately, the people best equipped to engage in that war are an ill-focused, disorganized lot.

Who has any chance of swaying Muslim opinion away from the jihadi view? Robert Spencer and Bill Maher? No. Muslims will most likely be swayed by Muslim authorities - clerics, politicians, academics. These leaders who reject the jihadi view need to organize in a united front, and put together a substantive message supporting their opposition to the jihadi view. They're not doing that. If they were, the American press so desperate to push the Religion of Peace meme would have found them.

Labels: Europe, Middle East, War on Terror, World

Labels: History, War on Terror

Labels: History, War on Terror

Reason headline: 8 Reasons Not to Go to War in Syria.

To sum up the first two points, there's nobody to root for. As George S. Patton said, "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." The only way American interests (and the interests of all civilized peoples) come out on top is if ALL factions in the Syrian civil war lose - which requires a new entrant, one that the West can tolerate. Who's that gonna be?

Labels: Middle East, Politics, War on Terror

Headline: Saudi Arabia to Step in and Cover Lost Western Aid to Egypt.

More than one commenter likes the idea of somebody other than the US sending the foreign aid.

Whether or not we send foreign aid, we need to pick a side:

And there’s no doubt which side we should pick. The Muslim Brotherhood is the enemy of the U.S. and what’s left of the West. The Egyptian military is not. The Muslim Brotherhood is, as Steve says, “a fascist political faction with murderous intent.” The Egyptian military is not.

And there’s an even more fundamental consideration. World peace and order depends on the extent to which key nations are ruled by governments with no strong desire to wage or promote war. These days, fortunately, nearly all key nations are so ruled, including, I submit, Russia and China. Iran and, arguably, North Korea are the two exceptions.

Egypt’s military leadership has no strong desire to wage or promote war. We see this from its willingness to crack down on Islamist militants in the Sinai who are committed to provoking Israel.

Labels: Middle East, Politics, War on Terror

One of the lefty excuses for dismissing the Benghazi scandal is that it happened a long time ago. Didn't they pursue Iran-Contra for years and years after it became "a long time ago?" And the funding of the Contras ultimately saved lives. We don't know how many, but we do know the murderous legacy of Communism.

Labels: Crime, Politics, War on Terror

That certainly seems to be the case from the Kurdish point of view.

Labels: Middle East, Politics, War on Terror, World

Full transcript of the debate is here. Krauthammer: "Romney went large — Obama went very, very small."

Elizabeth Price Foley, guest-blogging at Instapundit: Obama "snarky, condescending, peevinsh and small." She offers one example for each characteristic.

Steve Green, who live-blogged the debate: "Obama has run far and fast from his own record. Romney, I’m sorry to say, hasn’t always hit him for that as much or as strongly as I think he should have...[but] Romney is credible." Ann Althouse: "By adopting a strategy of only modestly challenging Obama and mostly seeming the same as Obama on foreign policy, Romney neutralized foreign policy as an issue and kept the election focus on the economy...The election is about the economy...The only way Obama really could have won is if Romney had tumbled into some kind of exploitable gaffe. That didn't happen."

Two highlights from the debate. First, Russia:

OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

Obama lied.

ROMNEY: [Russia is] a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same — in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he’ll get more backbone.

Fox News has a video excerpt with Romney's response. The "rose-colored glasses" part starts at 00:33. Obama is completely unfazed by the "flexibility" remark.

Second...Romney brought attention to Obama's "apology tour."

Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq. And by the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations. And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations, and on Arabic TV, you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations.

NRO also remembers the tour.

In France he criticized America’s past “arrogance” and its “dismissive . . . derisive” behavior. In Trinidad he lamented a “disengaged” United States that sought to “dictate . . . terms” in the hemisphere. At the National Archives he charged his predecessors with making foreign-policy decisions “based on fear rather than foresight” and “trimm[ing] facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.” Countries, even good ones, may sometimes need to apologize for specific mistakes. Generic national self-flagellation is another thing entirely, particularly when it is a form of personal self-congratulation.

Labels: Middle East, Politics, War on Terror, World

Gateway Pundit has an excellent summary, complete with fact-checking on Obama's lies on job creation, energy production on federal lands, and Benghazi security.

The site reports an issue that needs to be brought up in the third debate, and Romney's future ads: Terrific… US Arms to Syrian Rebels Are Going Mostly to Al-Qaeda.

Here's a debate statistic from Breitbart: Crowley Interrupts Romney 28 Times, Obama Just 9. Elizabeth Price Foley predicted this (Point 6).

Glenn has lots of links.

Update: Michelle Malkin spots another debate lie.Repeat after me - PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOES NOT PROVIDE CANCER SCREENINGS. And read the whole thing - Malkin explains how Obamacare threatens access to cancer screenings.

Labels: Media, Politics, War on Terror

...Candy!



The Washington Times has more on the Libya lie.

Ann Althouse reports on Candy's broken promise.

Labels: Media, Politics, War on Terror

Gateway Pundit headline: Bombshell: American Diplomats In Libya Made Repeated Requests For Security – But Were Denied.

This post list s 4 previous attacks in Benghazi - June 6, June 11, June 18, and August 5 this year. Targeted were our consulate, the British ambassador's motorcade, the Tunisian consulate, and the International Red Cross.

Labels: Politics, War on Terror

The film Innocence of Muslims came to the attention of the Islamic world on September 6, when it was first reported by an Egyptian daily newspaper. A clip was televised on Salafist TV station al Nas on the 8th. Protests erupted in Egypt.

But did the film have anything to do with what happened in Libya?

The Washington Post has a chronological list of statements made about the attacks. Early on we were told that spontaneous protests over Innocence of Muslims sparked the Libyan attacks.

For instance, on September 16, Susan Rice claimed: "Based on the best information we have to date ... it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo."

But on September 20, Margaret Brennan of CBS News reported: "Witnesses tell CBS News that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead they say it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account."

Who do we believe - Rice, or eyewitnesses? Since she also made the laughable claim of "a substantial security presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi," I vote for the eyewitnesses.

We were also told that the administration didn't know early on whether or not it was a terrorist attack (as opposed to a mob action). On September 19, Mathew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, stated, "What we don't have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack."

But now the White House says it knew within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack.



Did the White House have any intelligence prior to September 11 that an attack against the Libya consulate might be in the works? Kim Sengupta of The Independent reports, "According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted."

Later that day (September 14), Jay Carney responded: "I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false."

On its website on September 6, the Overseas Security Advisory Council had posted a memo stating that "OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11." The blog Speak With Authority reports that the memo was scrubbed, some time between the 8th and the 12th. Why?

Congressional leaders of both parties want answers regarding the already-established misinformation. Most troubling are the allegations reported in The Independent that the administration had "actionable intelligence" (in Carney's words) prior to the attacks, contrary to claims by Carney and the OSAC memo. I would hope that Kim Sengupta's sources would come forward and tell us what they knew and when they knew it.

If the film didn't sparked the Libya attacks, what did? Sengupta states: "There is growing belief that the attack was in revenge for the killing in a drone strike in Pakistan of Mohammed Hassan Qaed, an al-Qa'ida operative who was, as his nom-de-guerre Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests, from Libya, and timed for the anniversary of the 11 September attacks."

Labels: Crime, Politics, War on Terror

And they were right!

I wonder if Hillary still defends secular dissent...

Labels: Politics, Religion, War on Terror

He says the Cairo embassy statement is comparable to blaming a woman for her rape.

Civilized people can bear ridicule of that which they hold dear without killing people. The problem is that the Muslim community has way too many uncivilized people - and not enough civilized folks (Muslim or otherwise) are standing up to those sorts.

Labels: Politics, War on Terror

Today I caught a bit of Mark Levin's show. He was upset that the Obama administration didn't consider that maybe - just maybe - our embassies and consulates might need beefed-up defenses on 9/11. Earlier this morning I was thinking something a little different: shouldn't our embassies and consulates in Libya and Egypt have been massively armed as soon as each of them became powder kegs? For that matter, considering that Islamic supremacists are still at war with us, shouldn't ALL our embassies and consulates in Muslim-majority nations be packing maximum heat?

Labels: Middle East, Politics, War on Terror

See last year's post on 9/11.

Labels: History, War on Terror

Blast from the past, originally aired in 2002.



On naming the war, I think "War on Islamic Supremacism" is better than the alternatives offered by Lou Dobbs (cited) and Hitchens and in the video. I'm not changing the tag for these posts, though - this is the 115th post with the "War on Terror" tag.

Labels: War on Terror

Just because an evil dictator has been killed doesn't mean Libya becomes a better place. We don't know how peaceful - or how violent - the contest for power will be. We don't know who will fill the power vacuum. We don't know if the new boss will be someone the West can establish amenable relations with.

Don't break out the champagne glasses until we see how this thing turns out.

Labels: Middle East, War on Terror, World

Ion Mihai Pacepa - who once had a price on his head, placed by Qadaffi - applies a bit of Cold War thinking to the Arab world.

KLo interviews expert on Islamic supremacism Barry Rubin.

Katrina Trinko reports Perry and Romney's reactions.

Jack David issues words of caution.

Labels: Middle East, War on Terror, World

On September 11, 2001, Islamic supremacism launched its greatest attack against Amercian targets.

Since then, Osama bin Laden has been killed, al-Qaeda devastated, its Taliban allies toppled.

President Bush realized that al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies were not our only enemies in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein was a persistent threat - he was running off UN weapons inspectors for a reason - and Bush decided that this threat must be nipped in the bud. That task has been accomplished.

The war has yet to be taken to all our enemies. Hezbollah has been at war with us since its founding. The US has yet to make so much as a fender scratch, and many of our politicians complained when Israel fought back against Hezbollah attacks in 2006. We're allowed to seek victory over al-Qaeda, Israel isn't allowed to defeat even one of the many warring Islamic terror organizations.

Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy, thus we are in a state of war with Iran. The United States must defeat of the theocratic regime and gain friendly relations with its successor government. Unless the mullahs step up their hostilities to drastic levels, we must seek this victory through a cold war. The Cold War brought a lot of American (and Soviet) meddling in that country, and it bred lots of resentment that continues to this day - even among those friendliest to the West. The solution to this problem must elevate those Western-friendly sorts to power, and we resist the urge to play band director and trust them to restructure their government.

Islamic supremacists believe that Mohammed promised global conquest to to his followers. If this stems from a faulty interpretation of the Koran, then Islamic scholars must step up to the plate and publicly explain why this is so. A key concern is Mohammed's long list of military dictates - scholars must explain logically (and not with Jacques Derrida deconstructionist sleight-of-hand) that those commands were intended to address existing wars, and contained no calls for future generations to fight future wars against the infidels.




Update: Randy Barnett reprints his September 18,2001 article acknowledging the role of the militia on Flight 93.

Labels: History, Politics, War on Terror