Via Jihad Watch (emphases mine):

In “5 Myths About Terrorism” in the [September 11, 2007] Washington Post (thanks to Steve), Alan B. Krueger provides a sterling example of the politically correct myopia that prevents an accurate analysis of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. And he does so in such a clumsy way that it is remarkable that no one at the paper caught this before it was printed:

4. Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims.
Wrong. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism. (Sri Lanka, for instance, has grappled for decades with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that pioneered suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic and hopes to create a homeland for the country’s mostly Tamil minority, who are largely Hindu.) Although radical Islamic terrorists are the worry du jour because of 9/11 and Iraq, the data show pretty clearly that the predominant religion of a country is not a good predictor of whether its people will become involved in terrorism.After all, it was not long ago that homegrown villains such as Timothy McVeigh and the so-called Unabomber were the most notorious terrorists. That makes sense; the vast majority of terrorist incidents are local, motivated by local concerns and carried out by natives. Even international terrorist events tend to be local affairs, most frequently carried out by local militants who target foreigners who happen to be in their country. (Just think of last week’s foiled plot to attack U.S. targets in Germany.) This suggests that the likelihood of attack by homegrown terrorists is far greater than the threat of another 9/11-style attack by foreigners. 

Did you catch that? Terrorism isn’t “mainly perpetrated by Muslims” because “no religion has a monopoly on terrorism.” This doesn’t even establish what Krueger wants it to establish, because the fact that people of all religions have committed terrorist acts doesn’t disprove the contention that terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims. If one group is responsible for something, say, 80% of the time, it is mainly responsible for it: you can’t point to the existence of the other 20% as if it were proof that the 80% group is not mainly responsible.

Also, it should be obviously absurd to everyone at this point, but of course it isn’t, to drag out poor old McVeigh, and the Unabomber to boot, and stack them up as equivalent to the plethora of armed Islamic organizations that can be found all over the planet, and the more the 9,000 terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11. But of course since the overwhelming majority of those have not been reported by Krueger’s friends with any significant mention or exploration of the Islamic texts and teachings that the perpetrators used to justify them, most Americans don’t realize that they have anything to do with Islam in the first place — while every schoolchild knows that McVeigh was a Christian (he wasn’t).Finally, it is in no way relevant to a discussion of terrorism in general, much less Islamic jihad terrorism in particular, to assert that “every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism.” It’s a shame that such superficial analysis is so dominant these days. While the statement may be broadly true, it brushes by the central question: does Islamic theology and tradition contain any elements that encourage its followers to be involved in terrorism? Do other religions? This is a central consideration of my book Religion of Peace?, and it is a question media and policymakers should be asking. They don’t, of course, because CAIR and others have mau-maued them into thinking that even to ask such questions promotes “bigotry” and “intolerance,” as well as that trumped-up concept “Islamophobia.” It never occurs to them that such discussions would actually aid the moderate Muslims they profess to support, being a necessary step toward the self-criticism that would have to be an essential component of any genuine Islamic reform.

Today’s WaPo on September 15, 2007, is promoting “7th Heaven,” an interfaith game for middle schoolers. Article here. CAIR has approved the game. Sample question:

8. On what two levels does Islam seek to promote peace?

Answer: “Peace within one’s self and peace with others.”

Apparently, the creators of the game have chosen to ignore the last “revelation” of Allah: Sura 9. An excellent explanation of that Sura is HERE. An explanation of the concept of abrogation of verses is HERE. You can find even more about abrogation HERE.
 

From the PRNewsWire:

The release does go on to mention some interesting thoughts regarding the self perceptions of Americans who are Muslim, but continues to endorse the absurd fallacy that being a muslim is comparable to being an ethnicity. From the study:

 Muslims’ biggest gripe with advertising is that it doesn’t acknowledge
      their existence: A high 71 percent of Muslims (vs. 34 percent of the
      general sample) agreed that “Advertisers rarely show anybody of my
      faith/ethnicity in their advertising,” and 72 percent said that if they
      felt advertisers generally wanted or appreciated the business of
      Muslims, they would pay more attention to ads.

Faith/ethnicity?? The mere phrasing of the question invalidates it. Is the Arab Muslim referring to seeing people of his ethnicity? or people of his faith? How would one make overt indication that a person depicted is Muslim without being accused of stereotyping? Were the Muslims of african ancestry referring to seeing black africans in television advertisments, or Muslims, or only black Muslims? Of those black Muslims, are we excluding African American Muslims, or are they counted along with recent immigrants from Africa, who are Muslim? Did the JWT, the advertising firm involved, ask participants if non-Arab Muslims were tired of all Muslims on television being depicted as Arabs? We can be sure they didn’t ask Arabs but non-Muslims if they were tired of all Arabs being assumed to be Muslim.

Other absurdities in the study, include this sweet tidbit:

Well over half of Muslims (57 percent) feel that media coverage is always/mostly biased, and another third (34 percent) feel it is occasionally biased. The general public senses an anti-Muslim slant as well, with 25 percent agreeing that coverage is always/mostly biased and 48 percent saying it’s occasionally biased.

 The “general public” senses an anti-muslim slant because 25 percent says  coverage is “always/mostly biased”.  And why do I have a feeling that you could find 48% of ANYONE to say that the media is ”occasionally biased” against them.

The methodology of the study?

wide-ranging study on America’s estimated 6 to 8 million Muslims; it includes in-depth interviews with noted American Muslims, ethnographies of ordinary Muslims and a survey of 350 Muslims that used face-to-face interviews.    

Of an estimated 6 to 8 million muslims, they spoke to 350? Taking the high range of muslim residents in America, that means the study included a whopping .0043% of Muslims in America. I never took statistics in college, can anyone tell me if .0043% is considered a statistically valid sample? As for the in-depth interviews with “noted American Muslims”, I’ll give you 5-1 that those interviews included at least one CAIR official. (And just to even the odds, I’ll point out that the study is linked by CAIR’s latest mass mail update.) Also, by definition how do you conduct an ethnography of a religion?

Islam is not an ethnicity, it is a belief system.

“I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah, and I bear witness that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah”
Those two simple statements are at the core of becoming a Muslim. They are both statements of belief. 

The two columns of western civilization, IMHO, are the concept that ideas and beliefs are subject to rational inquiry and examination, and the concept that “all men are created equal.” The attempt to depict Islam as an ethnicity rather than a belief system is a concentrated, intentional effort to make Islam beyond reproach or inquiry. It cannot be judged harshly, after all, “we are all equal.” It makes sense to the enlightened western mind to treat all races equally, after all one’s race is pre-determined and unchangeable, part of how we “are created…” But it is an aberration to claim “all creeds are created equal.” Communism and Nazism are provably not equal to representative democracy in either subjective standards such as human rights and freedoms, or objective ones like economic well-being, life expectancy, or infant mortality. They are ideologies which make claims which are patently and provably absurd.

 I suppose we shouldn’t be too terribly surprised by this latest study. After all, it’s not like the advertising industry doesn’t know a little something about the bait and switch.

My brain hurts. I’ll admit to making it only 20 mintues into the long version of the audio from the ADAM’s center before I had to stop. I wonder sometimes if CAIR and their ilk have gotten away with this nonsense for so long simply because reasonable people can’t bear to listen to their non-factual rantings at length. It’s nothing but Chewbacca defense, ad nauseum.

 A show of hands, how many of you out there shriek at your TVs during primetime newscasts as you listen to the grievance-mongers like CAIR compare 6 provocative Imans to Rosa Parks, call Hamas “democratic”, or defend the right of muslim cabbies to refuse travel to blind people with seeing-eye dogs or transporting legally purchased alcohol? We bemoan the utter and apparent absurdity of it, but do nothing, because… c’mon everyone MUST have seen through such transparent nonsense… right?

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

The above is of course Goebbels. The opposition’s arguments do not have to be rational (and how can they be as they oppose enlightenment values in support of a 7th century ideology), they only have to be repeated. Whether it’s a statement about a furry sci-fi character, or the idea that it is discrimination to force taxi drivers to pick up blind people, (or for people to call security when they see something out of the ordinary), each statement is like a tiny rock hammer to our collective cerebrum.

Don’t let the Islamist 5th Column lull you into a stupor just because at first glance their arguments are self evidently asinine. to Paraphrase:

 ”If you hear something (absurd)… Say Something!”

my enemy’s enemy. Sharon Chadha has an interesting post up today about some inter-Jihadi squabbling between a radical cleric from Kuwait named Sheikh Hamid al-Ali, and the Al Qaeda in Iraq. (I’ve always questioned why we bother to add the “in Iraq” part. Isn’t Al Qaeda simply Al Qaeda? The Mcdonald’s down on the corner has a franchise owner, but its still a Mcdonald’s.) It’s here, and I suggest you take a read.

 Jihadist cleric says the Islamic State in Iraq is illegitimate

Sharon includes a bit from MEMRI where at least one of the Sheikh’s followers isn’t too happy about the red on red targeting, expressing concern about appearances. Says Sharon:

 I, for one, hope he’s right about this - that the media will exult about this “fitna” (dissent) in the jihadist corps - but I won’t hold my breath. I sometimes get the impression the mainstream media is almost as invested in the Americans losing as al Qaeda is.

Well I wouldn’t hold my breath either. It is interesting to know for certain, after we have always suspected, that the islamists are highly sensitive as to their appearance in the press, particularly as regards any show of dissent or disunity. Still, as The Freedom Fighter’s Journal points out, counting on red or red jihadi disagreement to save us from islamo-fascism and the global caliphate (or to make ourselves feel better about surrender on the battlefield in places like Iraq) is a hope in vain. 

First, no matter what happens inside Iraq, any US decision to withdraw will be celebrated as a victory by al Qaeda. Whatever way the spin doctors in Washington dress it up, bin Laden is certain to portray the pullout as another example of what he once described as the “low spiritual morale of the American fighters.” Al Qaeda, in other words, will be emboldened—even if it fails to set up a permanent safe haven or establish an Islamic theocracy. Most worryingly, the foreign fighters—now experienced and battle-hardened veterans of the “global jihad”—will soon turn up and cause trouble in other places, such as Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.

 FFJ is correct here as well. The continued, foolish belief, that the enemies of our enemies are our friends seems to be a hallmark of the West, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Particularly in regards to the threat from Islamists, many of the rationalist, policy-making types, have presumed again and again that Sunnis can be played against Shiites, and the radicals can be played against the even more radical, when to all of those involved in the jihad the main target will always remain western civilization as a whole, from the Great Satan to the smallest european state.

 Update: Silly me. This post talking about efforts to split and undermine the Islamist movement, is the perfect opportunity to mention yet again, the vital importance of the “Islam against the Islamist” film, which is being censored and blacklisted. As Christine reported here a screening of the video was shown to congress members and their staff this week, as part of the effort to force the corporation for public broadcasting to either show the video, or release the rights for the film back to its producers, so that the film can be shown somewhere. Remember this film was produced with a PBS grant, which essentially means its US tax-payer property. The film screening was Wednesday, but there is still time to contact your representative or senator and tell them that you want this film released.

 http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

Exile at On The Wing, an intrepid blogger in Denmark, has the latest on EU baseless attacks and general lack of common sense:

Denmark has been pointed out, once again, as being racist toward its overwhelming hordes of unwanted, unloved, unwashed and misunderstood muslims. Yet again, we are intolerant, ignorant of their special needs and unwilling to accomodate them. We have adopted a harsh tone when discussing, no, condemning is a better word, our wonderful culturally enriching muslim population.

My only comment is; “Hallelujah”. In that case, we are doing something right over here.

This new accusation comes from yet another European watchdog social democratic package of initials calling itself the OSCE. Another overpaid and idiotic edict-producing body of know alls that sit in Brussels. The OSCE is the “Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe”. You can add it to my list of hate-entities like the ECRI (European Committee against Racism and Intolerance) and CERD (Committee for the Eradication of Racial Discrimination).

The OSCE report states that Denmark is limiting the amount of social benefits available to muslims, allows no mosques, no burial grounds and that we rarely invoke the racism paragraphs of of our legal system. All of the above statements from the OSCE are untrue. The government here is livid and, frankly, so am I.

So who wrote this anti-Danish society report? Let me tell you….”

More….

from Atlas Shrugs …Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Preparing for War in the Streets of America

Can’t reveal my sources on this but here’s something to chew on.

“Public information officers or spokesman for law enforcement agencies are purposely downplaying and in some cases lying outright to the public about arrests of Muslims in the US,” so said one Federal law enforcement official.

“We have been told what to say, and more important, what not to say, and warned not to deviate from the ‘template.’

According to this source, this is causing some officers within various departments of federal agencies to become angry at the ‘mandated political spin and pressure” created by ‘orders from above.” When asked who were giving such orders, this source could only say that it was from the “big boys in Washington DC.”
Apparently this is killing morale and “everyone knows it’s a joke.” “It makes some of us sick, the politically correct shit we have to put up with.”

The source whose father was an agent during the 1960s racial problems said what was happening then was nothing short of easy compared to now. “In those days at least there was some honesty in dealing with the problem, today there is none.”

Specifically this source was responding to inquiries concerning one MOUSA M AMBUELAWI, 22, a Muslim fro St Charles Missouri who was charged buying or attempting to buy grenades, weapons and claymore mines to be used to “prepare for war.”

MAN WAS ARMING FOR WAR St Louis Post Dispatch

A St. Charles man obtained fully automatic weapons and tried to buy as many explosives as possible in preparation for what an associate called “war,” the FBI says in court documents.

He bought three rifles and a Claymore anti-personnel mine and negotiated for a case of hand grenades, documents obtained by the Post-Dispatch show.

Mousa M. Abuelawi, 22, of Franjoe Court, was arrested Dec. 29 and charged on complaints accusing him of three counts of illegal possession or distribution of a machine gun and conspiracy to violate machine gun statutes.

Abuelawi, a Palestinian immigrant free on $50,000 bond, could not be reached.

The context of the word “war” was not explained in court filings; the FBI declined to comment.

According to the agent, this case “fits a pattern we’ve been seeing.”

“Wea re discoverng more and more trafficking in arms and these kind of explosives, the stuff you see in the Middle East.”

There are more and specific cases that illustrate that there are Muslim men here in the US that are “preparing to fight on the streets of our cities, or at least that’s what they think they are going to do.” And so they are “buying these weapons and even explosives, stealing them in many cases, preparing for this eventuality.”

The men invloved in this movement commonly refered to as “the paintball jihad” Besides buying weapons and anything they can get their hands on, they are practicing urban combat.

“What is surprising to us, such as the trafficking in rocket launchers ( a reference to case in Albany) is that we are seeing more of this, more attempts to buy the kinds of weapons that used to be unheard of in law enforcement circles. It’s a growing problem, one that we will see in streets before long, I’m afraid.”