July 16, 2005

Appeals ruling approves tribunal

Geneva Conventions protections for prisoners of war do not apply to members of the al Qaeda terrorist network, a federal appeals court panel ruled yesterday, giving the Bush administration the green light for a military trial of Osama bin Laden's personal chauffeur.
    
In a major victory for President Bush,[and for America, I might add!--Jen]
the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said a joint resolution passed by Congress in the wake of the September 11 attacks authorized the president to use military commissions to try enemy combatants, including Yemeni national Salim Ahmed Hamdan.
[That same joint resolution also gave the President general war powers, whether the Dhimmicrats want to admit it or not.--J.T.]
[...]
The appeals court ruling noted that even if the Geneva Conventions could be enforced, they would not assist Hamdan because he did not fit the definition of a "prisoner of war." The panel said Hamdan was not a member of an organization that conducted its operations "in accordance with the laws and customs of war," noting the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al Qaeda and its members.
[...]
 "Under the Constitution, the president has a degree of independent authority to act in foreign affairs," Judge Randolph said. "For this reason, and others, his construction and application of treaty provisions is entitled to great weight."
    
Hamdan's attorneys asked the Supreme Court directly last year to rule immediately on the case's merits, saying the government improperly expanded its executive branch authority. Justice Department attorneys argued that Mr. Bush "properly determined" that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al Qaeda terrorists, that his power to convene military commissions was "inherent in his authority as commander in chief" and that it had been memorialized by Congress.

Oh, yeah!
Those Gitmo goons need to find out, like this Islamonutter did, that they can't "work" the legal system to get out of their murdering jihad!
And finally, some truly wise judges whose decision doesn't make me retch.
God bless them.
We happens at Gitmo should stay at Gitmo. Period.
(Can't wait to get my Rush Club Gitmo t-shirt that says exactly that, either--ordered it last night!)

For a rare change, here's a NYTimes op ed I can totally agree with:
Where's the Newt?

[...]
For now, though, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a reporter who did not write a story about it.

It would be logical to name it the Not-a-gate scandal, but I prefer a bilingual variation. It may someday make a good trivia question:

What do you call a scandal that's not scandalous?

Nadagate.

Oh, but the Lib Dems and their pals in the MSM seemingly have nothing better to do this summer, even with terrorist bombs killing over 50 people in London by home-grown jihadis.
I've always hated this story, so if you've come seeking Talmudic-type posts on the L'Affair Plame, you'll need to go to other blogs.
I knew this story was BS back in 2003: President Bush wouldn't lie in his SOTU speech or any other speech and he hates leakers.
(Note that poor sweet David Frum got axed for bragging to a friend in an email that it was he who had coined the term "axis of evil.)
Karl Rove wouldn't leak Plame's name in the first place, even if he knew it, which I don't think he did.
President Bush has continued to stand by Rove from the get-go and that means he's cool with Karl.
Furthermore, the British stood by the story of Saddam buying yellowcake.
If seeing this story through will put a stake through the heart of the "Bush lied." meme, maybe it will have been worth it.
That and making the Dhimmicrats look like desperate partisan chumps...again.
Otherwise, it's extremely tiresome and obnoxious because I know they know it's "Nadagate," too.
And it looks like Ms. Judy Miller (aka Susan McDougal 2) is in even more trouble than she was last week:
New charge feared against reporter in CIA leak probe
Who's Judith covering for? Herself or Joe Wilson?

Ya know, when the NYTimes and the WashingtonComPost both begin to distance themselves from a story, I think we can conclude that this faux scandal is over.
Hallelujah!
Now can we get back to fighting and winning this war?!

July 15, 2005

Bomber's parliament trip

THE Labour Party confirmed tonight that one of the London bombers visited the Houses of Parliament as a guest of an MP.

Mohammad Sidique Khan, 31, visited parliament in July 2004 in his capacity as a learning mentor at Hill Side Primary School in Leeds.

The bomber, who was responsible for the Edgware Road blast, met Labour MP Jon Trickett.

Mr Trickett, whose wife Sarah is headteacher at Hill Side, spoke today of his shock.

He said: "I was shocked to learn that someone who had grown up in the area of Beeston where I lived and which I represented on Leeds City Council for 12 years should turn out to be one of the London bombers."

He added: "It is profoundly disturbing to discover that a person, who appeared to care so deeply for the children at that time, should so callously take the lives of others only a year later."
[...]

It was also confirmed that Khan visited Mr Trickett and his wife at their home.

In July last year, the MP’s wife took a number of her schoolchildren on a trip to London and Khan accompanied the party as a member of school staff.

The Labour Party said the school group visited a number of attractions
including the London Eye and St James’s Park.
[The London Eye is that big ferris wheel you always see towering above the London skyline.--Jen]

They then met Mr Trickett who accompanied the group on their visit around the Palace of Westminster.

The whole group was fully screened by the House of Commons Security system on entry into Portcullis House, and was accompanied at all times throughout their visit until the time they left the building, the Labour Party said.

Chilling!
While this poor MP and his wife were only trying to give the children a field trip and being nice to their constituents, like Bomber Khan, he was casing every site for jihadi homicide bombing potential.
I read that the Houses of Parliament were almost destroyed in WWII by the Blitz--good thing they weren't hit yet again on 7/7, but will there be a "next time?"
God is (supposed to be) an Englishman and with His help and protection, the IslamoNazis won't get another chance.

Note there's video of the incident at this site:
Soldier survives attack; captures, medically treats sniper

During a routine patrol in Baghdad June 2, Army Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer, a medic, was shot in the chest by an enemy sniper, hiding in a van just 75 yards away. The incident was filmed by the insurgents.

Tschiderer, with E Troop, 101st “Saber” Cavalry Division, attached to 3rd Battalion, 156th Infantry Regiment, 256th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, was knocked to the ground from the impact, but he popped right back up, took cover and located the enemy’s position.

After tracking down the now-wounded sniper with a team from B Company, 4th Battalion, 1st Iraqi Army Brigade, Tschiderer secured the terrorist with a pair of handcuffs and gave medical aid to the terrorist who’d tried to kill him just minutes before.

Outstanding, soldier!
Our military is the best and don't anyone forget it--only an American soldier would do something like this!

Tip of the helmet to Drudge

British Muslim leader barred from U.S.British Muslim leader barred from U.S.

British Muslim leader Sheik Zaki Badawi said Friday he had been refused entry to the United States without explanation.
[How disingenuous for him to pretend that he doesn't know why...--Jen]
[...]
A spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it had information that led to Badawi being deemed "inadmissible."
     
The British government announced Thursday it would consider the automatic exclusion of extremists who were banned overseas, as part of a raft of measures designed to keep "preachers of hate" out of the country.
     
Badawi, who is also a leader of the Council of Mosques and Imams, is considered a moderate who appeared with fellow British faith leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, on Sunday to deliver a joint statement condemning last week's "evil terrorist" attacks on London.

Thank God the British decided today to adopt our blacklist for their green and (before 7/7) pleasant land:
US militant blacklist to apply in Britain
[Note how the Lefty Australian uses the word "militant" instead of terrorist. Pathetic.]

ISLAMIC extremists denied entry to the US would be automatically banned from Britain under anti-terror measures outlined yesterday by Tony Blair's Government.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke plans to prevent Muslim figures such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Tariq Ramadan entering Britain if they have been barred from the US or other European Union countries.

Dr al-Qaradawi, who backed Palestinian suicide bombers, was controversially invited to London last year by the Mayor, Ken Livingstone.
[...]
The Home Office is also preparing a package of measures to tackle terrorism and extremist clerics. The Government is renewing efforts to reach agreement with North African countries to deport suspect terrorists and troublemakers there.

Under human rights laws, Britain cannot deport anyone to a country where they might be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. The cabinet agreed that it was vital to secure agreement with North African nations such as Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.

Whitehall sources said any agreement would have to be at the highest level to satisfy the Government and judiciary that deportations would not lead to any risk of inhuman treatment.

Mr Clarke is also looking at ways of tightening controls on asylum-seekers and those with "indefinite leave to remain" in Britain, including prohibiting encouragement of terrorism. Those who breach conditions would lose their right to stay.
[Like Abu Hamza (Captain Hook), preacher of Islamist hate at the now closed Finsbury Park mosque in London?]

Under existing laws, Mr Clarke can deport anyone given indefinite leave to remain in Britain if their presence is not in the "public interest". He can also strip a person of British citizenship, but only for treason and other activities against the interest of the country, and then only if it would not make the person stateless.

Britain is going to have to quit being silly while they're still bringing out corpses of last week's bombings from the Underground;
the UK needs to worry a little less about being the champion of human rights and worry a lot more about the human rights of their own citizens!
Better to let N. African governments do their magic on terrorists to interrogate and incarcerate jihadi killers, if the Brits are too squeamish or too riddled by multiculti-guilt to deal with these killers the way they must be dealt with!
Granted countries like Egypt are supposed to have real gulags, but then wouldn't you rather have a key bad guy--to wit, the scumbag who is thought to have built last Thursday's bombs-- put in an Egyptian jail than protected by mollycoddling British law on British soil?

July 14, 2005

Here's another excellent op ed on the revelation that the 4 London bombers were home-grown jihadis:
Britain Only Now Sees It's Harbored Terrorist Cells

Britain is in shock. Not just from the traumatic and grudging realization last Thursday that the country is at war, but from the discovery that the attack on London was the work of four suicide bombers, all of them young British Muslims. Readers of this column will not have been surprised by this realization, but it is only just dawning on the great British public that it has unwittingly harbored a terrorist cell in its midst, and that more "sleepers" may emerge to destroy us at any moment.
[And this could happen here and for the same reasons.--J.T.]

The uncanny dread that this knowledge engenders cannot be allayed by assurances from the authorities or from Muslim leaders that the attack on London had nothing to do with Islam. Such rhetoric has a hollow ring, now that we know the identities of the terrorists.

For these were ordinary young Muslims, born in Yorkshire to families who migrated from Pakistan a generation ago. One family ran a fish-and-chip take-away, another a grocery. Their fathers were pillars of the Leeds Muslim community. And yet these respectable families were incubating monsters who set off with backpacks full of explosives to kill and maim as many of their fellow countrymen as possible.

One of the suicide bombers, Hasib Hussain, aged 18, had recently returned from a pilgrimage to Mecca, having become a devout Muslim two years ago and grown a beard. According to friends," he never came across as any sort of fanatic." Shahzad Tanweer, 22, was a cricketer, who apparently told friends that he disapproved of the attacks on America of September 11, 2001. A third bomber, Mohammed Sidique Khan, was married and had become a father eight months ago. A fourth man, whose remains are still being identified in the grisly forensic operation in the subway deep below King's Cross station, probably came from a similar background.

As long as the visible face of the Islamist threat in Britain was the one-eyed, hook-handed imam of Finsbury Park mosque, Abu Hamza, whom American authorities have accused of setting up a terrorist training camp in Oregon, the public could at least feel that they knew their enemy. The imam, who lived a few doors away from me in our quiet West London street until his arrest last year, looked and sounded like a demagogic fundamentalist. His trial on terrorism charges has only just begun, and it is a scandal that it took so many years to assemble a case against him, but he was too identifiable ever to blend into the crowd.

That is not true of the Leeds suicide bombers. None of them obviously fitted the stereotype of the religious and political fanatic. If these young men could suddenly turn on their neighbors and kill them, why should those neighbors trust other young Muslims? It is hard to believe that none of their friends and relations suspected anything, but if they genuinely did not, then the implications are even more alarming.

There are up to 3 million Muslims living in Britain, the great majority of whom are British citizens. If, as the security services believe, about 3,000 of them have been recruited and trained by Al Qaeda, then one in a thousand Muslims is at least a potential terrorist. But at the last general election the Muslim community voted en bloc against the Blair government, on account of its support for the Iraq war and the Bush administration. Opinion polls confirm that a large proportion of Muslims, perhaps as many as half, have at least some sympathy with terror attacks against America and Israel.

So the one-in-a-thousand who is prepared to die for Islam can count on a much larger number who at the very least will not lift a finger to stop him. What is the government going to do about them?

It doesn't trust us enough to tell us the truth. We Londoners have been patting ourselves on the back about the lack of panic last Thursday, but it is now clear that the transport chiefs deliberately lied to us, claiming that a "power surge" had obliged them to close down the Underground, because they did not trust us not to panic if they admitted that we were under terrorist assault. Next time, nobody will believe such announcements.

t is also becoming clear that the government thought the British public would turn on their Muslim neighbors if it were told the truth. The police themselves have contributed to the myth that the real problem now facing us is not Islam, but Islamophobia. There have been a handful of incidents since last Thursday, but certainly nothing that could be called a backlash.
Yet the desire to prove that London's Metropolitan Police is not Islamophobic has created grotesque examples of political correctness. Scotland Yard is contributing $15,000 of taxpayers' money to enable a Swiss Islamist academic who is a recognized apologist for terrorism, Tariq Ramadan, to address a conference of young Muslims in London next month, despite knowing full well that Mr. Ramadan had been banned from America.
[Well, thank God we're doing something right!--Jen]

The result of this bad faith between the government and the governed is quite serious. Now that at last we know who and what we are up against, we are no longer sure that the authorities are on our side. The police protect Islam - I saw two constables standing guard outside the local mosque yesterday morning - but they are powerless to protect the rest of society against the Islamists. Exhorted to be vigilant, people fear accusations of Islamophobia if they voice their suspicions. It is so much easier to blame the Iraq war or the Americans or the Israelis than to face the horrific truth: that we now have a fifth column, nameless, faceless, and utterly ruthless, dedicated to transforming Britain into an Islamic republic.

At least we're not alone--America has the same problems.
And we're facing the same nameless, faceless and utterly ruthless enemy here, if the Liberals and their PC interest groups like the ACLU, CAIR, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International would leave us and our soldiers alone and let us fight this war the way it must be fought.
The Libs are holding up the Patriot Act because of non-existent curbs they claim it puts on suspects library privileges!
CAIR has been oh-so-busy doing things like making sure Fox's show "24" doesn't make all Muslims look like terrorists, even though all terrorists are Muslims.
The ACLU made sure that the killer enemy combatants at Gitmo got lawyers and had the Supremes bless it...Why?
President Bush and his administration have done a pretty good job fighting these killers but we can and must do alot more!
So far we haven't had any big attacks since 9/11, but our luck won't last forever.
Bush must move to close the borders and then find out who's here.
The Patriot Act must be renewed and made even tougher.
We must continue to shut down radical clerics preaching hate in American mosques and continue to close avenues of terrorist funding as well as silencing their fundraisers like Sami Al-Arian.
In spite of the intervention of the (largely Liberal) Supremes--and BTW, we can't afford to have anyone but a staunch Conservative constructionist to replace Sandra Day O' Connor--all 50 states must keep their death penalty intact, especially for crimes of terror and mass murder.
Lastly, give thanks to the Lord that we have the Second Amendment and pray that Britain might adopt it too one day.
Could someone that had a "concealed carry" perhaps have stopped one or more of the bombers on 7/7?
Tragically, we'll never know.

I think we were all pretty shocked (although it shouldn't have surprised us one bit) that the London bombers were all native Brits.
Here's the Telegraph's sharp columnist Matthew d'Ancona on facing the days after 7/7:

How are we going to fight this war?

[...]
But the arguments that follow will be conducted in a new and awful context: namely, the absolute, incontrovertible knowledge, spelt out in the blood of Londoners, that this war is now being waged in our very midst. "It is a war," one Cabinet minister said to me. "People didn't believe that till last Thursday. But they do now."

I hope he is right. This war, of course, is like nothing that has preceded it, which is why it is so tempting to call it something else: a criminal conspiracy, or a series of isolated atrocities carried out by psychopathic mavericks. And yet the analysis that the President and Prime Minister offered after 9/11 now seems more pertinent than ever.

We face three, inextricably linked threats: from Islamist fanatics, from the rogue states that harbour them, and from the deadly weapons which they seek to acquire. Only three months ago, Kamel Bourgass was jailed for 17 years for plotting to unleash ricin on London's streets. Bourgass failed. On July 7, Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer, Mohammed Sadique Khan and another man succeeded with conventional explosive. What if it had been the other way round?

Alas, these grim realities have been obscured for almost three years by the tangled arguments over the liberation of Iraq. At precisely the moment that it should have been looking outward with ever greater vigilance, the British polity turned in on itself. "Iraq" became political shorthand - like "spin" or "sleaze" - a metaphor for all that was objectionable about Mr Blair and his Government. The horizons of British politics narrowed dangerously.

Ironically, it has taken a local event to remind us of the global nature of this conflict, its pervasiveness, and our consequent inability to escape its consequences simply by blaming this or that head of government. Does anyone seriously believe that 52 more Londoners would be alive today if Gordon Brown were Prime Minister, and John Kerry were President? The question is so absurd that it scarcely merits a response.

Yet this was precisely the logic applied in the aftermath of the Iraq war. Get rid of Bush and Blair, and the bloodshed will stop. The Spanish tested that logic to destruction after the Madrid bombing and discovered, to their horror, that the jihadis carried on plotting their atrocities.

The Iraq war was grotesquely caricatured in this country as a symptom of the Prime Minister's political infatuation with George W Bush, even as a demented outburst of Christian adventurism.

It came to be viewed almost as an abstraction, a symbol of Mr Blair's mad itch to intervene, a quarrel in a far away country of which we know nothing. But everyone knows the London Underground map, and everyone can point now to the stations that bear fresh blood stains. The war on terror has come home.

In truth, it was always here.

In this conflict, everything is, and will be, connected. There is still much glee at the failure of the Iraq Survey Group to unearth Saddam's weapons. I would have thought a more pertinent question - and a terrifying one - is where, exactly, all those weapons are?
[No kidding.
I've been asking myself that question since April of 2003.--Jen]

That is, the 3.9 tons of VX gas, 8,500 litres of anthrax, 550 artillery shells containing mustard gas and other nasties that the Iraqi dictator himself admitted to producing in the 1990s, but are still officially "unaccounted for".

I am not saying that these unspeakable weapons have found their way into the hands of the disaffected young jihadis of West Yorkshire. But it requires only a small leap of imagination to conclude that there must be many other young men like them, in cities and mountain hideouts around the world, working desperately hard to lay their hands on these and similar tools of destruction.

Although the New Labour knee has not yet jerked, the contours of future action are already clear. The Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary have all been in Brussels this week seeking European co-operation on counter-terrorism.

Ministers mutter about the need to transform judicial culture tout court, and the heavy burden upon Lord Phillips of Matravers, who becomes Lord Chief Justice in September, to ensure that the courts deport those who should be deported.

Be in no doubt: the Government is braced for the worse. "If this is a one-off, we'll be all right," one of the Prime Minister's closest allies told me. "But if there are other incidents we have a very big problem."
[...]
Therein lay the seed of a huge and necessary debate on the proper balance between security and liberty in this country. But that debate will now be carried out in the proper context. This is not about party politics, Mr Blair's future, or the Iraq war.

It is about what a civilised society does to confront those who will do anything to themselves, and to others, in the name of a murderous mission that knows no limit.

Sobering, but necessary talk for both Britain and the U.S.
America, too, is still having the "debate" about the proper balance between security and liberty as the Patriot Act is up for renewal and has yet to be voted on.
My representatives had better darn sure vote for it or there'll be hell to pay from me!

We've been in a real war since 9/11, but it's good to know that the UK and America stand together as allies and that Britain stood with us shoulder-to-shoulder long before she was attacked.
Tony Blair's wrong about a lot of things, but he was right about fighting the WOT while preserving the Special Relationship.
May God grant us, the lovers of Life, victory over these IslamoNazi lovers of death.

July 11, 2005

This appeared the day after the London bombings, but it's still very powerful:
And this is why they did it


There is no way to reason with the terrorists, but the thinking behind their actions is perfectly clear

THE FIRST QUESTION that comes to mind is: what took them so long? The answer may be that in the past four years the British authorities have succeeded in preventing attacks on a number of occasions. David Blunkett, who was then Home Secretary, was often mocked for suggesting that this was the case.

It may take some time before the full identity of the attackers is established. But the ideology that motivates them, the networks that sustain them and the groups that finance them are all too well known.

Moments after yesterday’s attacks my telephone was buzzing with requests for interviews with one recurring question: but what do they want? That reminded me of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker, who was shot by an Islamist assassin on his way to work in Amsterdam last November. According to witnesses, Van Gogh begged for mercy and tried to reason with his assailant. “Surely we can discuss this,” he kept saying as the shots kept coming. “Let us talk it over.”

Van Gogh, who had angered Islamists with his documentary about the mistreatment of women in Islam, was reacting like BBC reporters did yesterday, assuming that the man who was killing him may have some reasonable demands which could be discussed in a calm, democratic atmosphere.

But sorry, old chaps, you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you.
[This account in today's news affirms that van Gogh's killer fits Taheri's mold to a "T:" Van Gogh suspect refuses defence:"[...]He appeared to be a hardline Muslim who saw himself as an "instrument of God", Mr Peters said.
The judge read out transcripts of police recordings of Mr Bouyeri, who is said to have told his younger brother: "I knew what I was doing, and I succeeded. I swear to God, if there were a death penalty, I would be begging for it."]

The ideological soil in which alQaeda, and the many groups using its brand name, grow was described by one of its original masterminds, the Pakistani Abul-Ala al-Maudoodi more than 40 years ago. It goes something like this: when God created mankind He made all their bodily needs and movements subject to inescapable biological rules but decided to leave their spiritual, social and political needs and movements largely subject to their will. Soon, however, it became clear that Man cannot run his affairs the way God wants. So God started sending prophets to warn man and try to goad him on to the right path. A total of 128,000 prophets were sent, including Moses and Jesus. They all failed. Finally, God sent Muhammad as the last of His prophets and the bearer of His ultimate message, Islam. With the advent of Islam all previous religions were “abrogated” (mansukh), and their followers regarded as “infidel” (kuffar). The aim of all good Muslims, therefore, is to convert humanity to Islam, which regulates Man’s spiritual, economic, political and social moves to the last detail.

But what if non-Muslims refuse to take the right path? Here answers diverge. Some believe that the answer is dialogue and argument until followers of the “abrogated faiths” recognise their error and agree to be saved by converting to Islam. This is the view of most of the imams preaching in the mosques in the West. But others, including Osama bin Laden, a disciple of al-Maudoodi, believe that the Western-dominated world is too mired in corruption to hear any argument, and must be shocked into conversion through spectacular ghazavat (raids) of the kind we saw in New York and Washington in 2001, in Madrid last year, and now in London.

That yesterday’s attack was intended as a ghazava was confirmed in a statement by the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe, an Islamist group that claimed responsibility for yesterday’s atrocity. It said “We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid (ghazava) in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.” Those who carry out these missions are the ghazis, the highest of all Islamic distinctions just below that of the shahid or martyr. A ghazi who also becomes a shahid will be doubly meritorious.

There are many Muslims who believe that the idea that all other faiths have been “abrogated” and that the whole of mankind should be united under the banner of Islam must be dropped as a dangerous anachronism. But to the Islamist those Muslims who think like that are themselves regarded as lapsed, and deserving of death.
[Could he mean pretty, secularized Muslims who had assimilated into British society like "missing" bomb victim ? I think so.--Jen]

It is, of course, possible, as many in the West love to do, to ignore the strategic goal of the Islamists altogether and focus only on their tactical goals. These goals are well known and include driving the “Cross-worshippers” (Christian powers) out of the Muslim world, wiping Israel off the map of the Middle East, and replacing the governments of all Muslim countries with truly Islamic regimes like the one created by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and by the Taleban in Afghanistan.

How to achieve those objectives has been the subject of much debate in Islamist circles throughout the world, including in London, since 9/11. Bin Laden has consistently argued in favour of further ghazavat inside the West. He firmly believes that the West is too cowardly to fight back and, if terrorised in a big way, will do “what it must do”. That view was strengthened last year when al-Qaeda changed the Spanish Government with its deadly attack in Madrid. At the time bin Laden used his “Madrid victory” to call on other European countries to distance themselves from the United States or face similar “punishment”.

Bin Laden’s view has been challenged by his supposed No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who insists that the Islamists should first win the war inside several vulnerable Muslim countries, notably Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Until yesterday it seemed that al-Zawahiri was winning the argument, especially by heating things up in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yesterday, the bin Laden doctrine struck back in London.

Apparently, they've decided to combine both strategies.
I believe that they attacked London because it's too hard for them to get in the USA these days and because it's also getting harder for them to carry out attacks in Iraq.
In fact, the day before 7/7, I was remarking that there had been no big bombs killing Iraqis since President Bush's big Ft. Bragg speech.
As President Bush said from the G8 on 7/7, "The war continues."
And Amir Tahiri explained why it will until we stop them, not by offering them "understanding" for why they kill us.
RECOGNIZE.

No-one besides Mark Steyn has more meaningful insight on the war than Victor Davis Hanson:
How to Lose a War

Thursday's attack in London is the latest blow struck in the war that began on Sept. 11. Its origins are easy to fathom: A minority of Muslim extremists, their numbers in the few millions, resents deeply the erosion of life in the Middle East and other Muslim areas. A globalized communications system reminds them daily how far behind a Pakistan is from India, how much better a South Korea or China is doing than Egypt, or how more humane life is in an Infidel North America or Europe than in Syria or Algeria.

Autocratic regimes, statist economies, gender apartheid, corruption, the absence of a free press — all that and more retard economic growth from the Gulf to Morocco. In response, theocratic regimes like the Taliban and the Iranian mullocracy blame the West for their own self-inflicted misery and inadequacies. But more often, clever dictators such as a Baathist Saddam, the Saudi Royal family, an Egyptian kleptocracy, or the Pakistani military regime allow Islamicists some rein, if not covert support, to deflect blame from their own failures onto the United States and the "Jews."

A shamed Islamic street — ill-housed, ill-fed, and ill-informed — is nourished on the mythology that a purer creed and a return to the 8th century alone can reclaim past glories of the caliphate, and stop the decadent intrusion of Western consumerism and popular culture.

So when terrorists strike in London — or Bali, New York or Madrid — they operate on a variety of assumptions. Middle Eastern governments may publicly deplore their methods, but privately sigh relief that al-Qaeda agents are still not yet after their own heads. Islamicist ganglia go deep into the central nervous system of the Pakistani intelligence service, not to mention the House of Saud.

Likewise, the Muslim public in the Middle East may decry terror, but privately often gets satisfaction when Westerners too are humbled. Their schadenfraude is cultivated by the old anti-Semitism — they can always say the Jews or Israel caused 9/11 or the London bombing — as well as by a deep shame over their own attraction toward Western affluence and consumerism. So we see the eerie spectacle after a 9/11 or 7/7 of imams assuring us that "Islam does not condone such things," even as bin Laden T-shirts and copies of Mein Kampf sell like hot-cakes on the Arab Street.

A third critical assumption is the deniability of culpability: only al Qaeda or its Mcfranchises in Europe are ever deemed responsible for something like Madrid or London. Apparently, such groups never visit the Pakistani border areas, never take a dime from Saudi princes, never travel through Syria on their way to this or that terrorist camp. And thus no terror-abetting nation ever faces any real accounting. That the attacks are periodic rather than daily, and that most of the world's oil reserves are in the Middle East make it easier for Westerners to live with the bloodshed rather than issue real ultimatums.

Fourth, and most important, the terrorists and their supporters understand that in a strange way the West is not only split, but also increasingly illiberal as well. It has lost confidence in its old commitment to rationalism, free speech and empiricism, and now embraces the deductive near-religious doctrines of moral equivalence and utopian pacifism. Al Qaeda's supporters will say that Thursday's victims were killed because of Afghanistan or Iraq. Westerners will duly repeat the dull refrain that "Bush lied, thousands died" in their guilt-ridden search for something we did to cause this.

And so, rather than focus our attention on the madrassas and the mosques that preach hatred, we will strive to learn more about Islamic culture, as if our own insensitivity were the true culprit. Our grandfathers could despise Bushido — Japan's warrior cult — without worrying whether they were being unfair to Buddhists; we of less conviction and even less courage, cannot do likewise.

In short, we now know what to expect from the London bombings and the others to follow. There will be no effort to punish the states that subsidize al Qaeda. Critics will cling to the myth that the British got what they had coming. The primary obsession of many Westerners will be to extend sensitivity to Islam, not the victims of those who kill in its name. And all will be consoled that just a few dozen were harvested this time.

What a strange way to fight a war.

I'm not happy or proud to admit it, but VDH is exactly right (as he is always).
Until more of us wake up--and neither he nor I intend for that moment to be the next big attack--and decide to put the gloves on to fight this evil enemy, they will continue to kill us.
The rule of the day is still, "not a matter of if, but when."
We here in the U.S. can be thankful that President Bush has dealt with the evildoers in a more realistic and aggressive way, but we need to do a lot more here:
We must tighten the borders and attempt to "find" the illegals already here, some of whom may be Islamist terrorist cell members, waiting for the green light to launch another attack.
We need to not only renew the Patriot Act, but give it even more "teeth" to enable our law enforcement officials the ability to catch, round up and incarcerate would-be killers.
Finally, we need for the Liberals to be silenced when they pointlessly criticize our dealings with the bad guys under our control at places like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.
This has resulted in the handcuffing of our military when it comes to fighting the enemy, not to mention hampering their efforts to interrogate prisoners and detainees in order to garner key information about future attacks and names of here-to-fore unknown jihadi murderers.
No, we shouldn't get them lawyers and we need for the evildoers to know that the death penalty is alive and well under American law, especially for war crimes.
While far from perfect, our American approach to fighting the WOT is least fairly aggressive, while the UK can look forward to having none of these offensive tools, although most of their problems vis-a-vis Islamist terrorism are identical to ours.
Do not let "Liberals" sing the siren song of multi-culti appeasement and sensitivity, asking that we "understand" our murderers.
The last words of American hero Todd Beamer still stand, "Let's Roll."

This very sobering article by Bruce Thornton should and will be one of the most crucial pieces you'll ever read on Islamic jihad:
Jihad Is Knocking

Another Episode in the War between Christendom and Islam

The slaughter in London is another grisly wake-up call that likely will go as unheeded as earlier ones. Already the standard narrative is being trotted out: evildoers created by what the New York Times predictably called the “root causes of terrorism”: autocracy, or economic stagnation, or Palestinian suffering, or globalization's dislocations, or Western historical sins, or the war in Iraq (the cause will depend on the political prejudices of the pundit) have “hijacked” Islam and distorted its peaceful message. And now they are using Islam to justify murder in order to further their own ambitions or dysfunctional psychic needs. Given this explanation, so the story goes, we must be careful not to demonize all Muslims and assure them that we respect their religion and culture. The tale is then wrapped up with fierce threats against the terrorists and protestations of admiration for Islam. [Check, check, and check...we've seen lots of this in the MSM since 7/7.--Jen]

Believing this delusion requires that one ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic jihad against the West, a war of conquest and colonization ratified by centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Indeed, what we call Islamic radicals are in fact Islamic traditionalists; it is the so-called “moderates” — those wanting to compromise Islam so it can coexist with Western ideas such as secular government, separation of church and state, and human rights — who are the radicals and innovators. The terrorists are simply fulfilling the traditional and orthodox command of their religion to battle the infidels who resist the revelation of Mohammed and the global socio-political order mandated by Islam.
[To illustrate the author's point, read this story in today's Sydney Morning Herald, the title of which is given without irony or even sneer quotes around "moderate": Moderate Muslim held over Bali bomb link--J.T.]

Listen to one of the most respected and influential of Muslim clerics, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, on the legitimacy of jihad: “It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property." (See Andrew Bostom:).This interpretation is entirely consistent with fourteen centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence, which in turn is based on the Koran's injunction to “slay them [infidels] wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter . . . . Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.” Andthis jihad is to continue “until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.”
[Believe it, my friends, or it is at the peril of our very lives!--Jen]

Islam's divinely sanctioned entitlement to global domination explains the symbolic value of the London attacks: one day after London was chosen to host the 2012 Olympics, and right in the middle of the G8 summit in Scotland. For both the Olympics and the G8 represent a global order that rivals Islam, one based on Western ideals and institutions, a social and political order in which Islam has no exalted position but is simply one religion among many. And, we should add, a global order whose notions of individual rights and secular government are incompatible with Islamic law.

So much is obvious — facts of the historical record. Yet listen to a respected historian in a conservative magazine: “Muslim holy wars (“jihads”), as taught in the Koran, were first and foremost a personal inner struggle for moral purity” and only secondarily a war against infidels. So all those Muslim armies that conquered the Christian Near East, North Africa, Egypt, Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, all that plunder, slaughter, rape, enslavement, kidnapping, and destruction were only the “secondary” jihad. How could such blindness to the obvious, masquerading as sophisticated “tolerance,” not arouse contempt in the minds of our adversaries? They tell us over and over that they are waging jihad in order to establish the global hegemony of Islam, and we tell ourselves that these Muslims don't understand their own religion. Millions and millions of Muslims all over the world cheer for the jihadists and support them materially and psychologically, millions idolize bin Laden and celebrate the murder of Westerners, but we tell ourselves that they are a minority of confused souls whose minds have been addled by poverty or autocracy or anger over the Palestinians.

In any conflict it's a good idea to take seriously the motives the enemy professes and not rationalize or explain them away in terms of your own cultural assumptions. The murderers we call terrorists are traditional jihadists, as much as were the first Islamic armies that swept away the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman civilizations of the Mediterranean. They are not going to be bought off with votes, a free press, more cable channels, Wal-Mart, or any other material good that to us constitutes the good life. They are fighting for a spiritual cause, the establishment of Islam as a global order in fulfillment of the will of Allah, and the reduction of all those who will not become Muslims to dhimmi, inferiors who acknowledge the superiority of Islam and the rightness of their subjection to it.

The next few weeks will show whether the British have advanced as far down the road of dhimmitude as have the Spaniards, who responded to the murder of their citizens not with the force and resistance their ancestors showed for seven centuries, but with fear and appeasement. As for us, we'd better discard our illusions that the jihadists, as Thomas Freidman put it, are “a cancer within the [Islamic] body politic” and accept instead that jihad just may be a vital organ. Then maybe we can see this war for what it is: one more episode in the long struggle between what used to be called Christendom and a religion of aggressive conquest and colonization.

 
I gives me no joy to report that we already can see the British response and while it's not so clearly apparent that the bombings have caused them to cave, as the Spanish did in their election of Zapatero and the subsequent withdrawal of their troops from Iraq, most Brits, from Tony Blair on down, have done a lot of talking that ultimately points to their fear and appeasement and not to fighting back.
We can only hope that Americans will continue to take the battle to the enemy, whether they be here at home or overseas.
I've been very depressed these last few days about the passive and submissive response of the British people.
We live in dark days.
The USA, with the help of only a few smaller nations like Australia, may end up fighting this war alone.
Don't be shocked if even the UK pulls out of the Coalition.
But that's OK, because we can handle it and because we know who and what the enemy is.
As this article points out, knowing and naming the enemy is the first step towards real victory over the death cult and evil that is the poisonous ideology of Islamist jihad.