A letter from Canon Andrew White, an anti-war "liberal’s liberal", as quoted in a piece on the subject of the medical bombers by Rick Moran:Dear Friends, Just over two months ago I wrote in my Update that I had the worst meeting in my life. …

Veterans of the most popular, and violent, major sport in America can’t get the medical treatment they need in retirement. Will growing public outcry and the threat of intervention from Congress be enough to force the NFL to act? By……

All Muslims swear fidelity to Islam.
Islam demands unconditional jihad against infidels.
————————
Thus, all Muslims, to be faithful to Islam, must support jihad against the infidel.

Infidels….that is us.

You need to work on your knowledge of Islam.

The Bush, Cheney version, response to 9/11 was to take on any perceived threat regardless of level or resources available. That gives us the predicament we are now in, Osama is still alive, and at least an inspiration to AQ, and we are still mired down in Iraq. Month after month, year after year, the Arab media and Jihadist websites show a constant stream of IED explosions and American “atrocities” that do serve as a recruitment tool for AQ. AQ seems to be winning because we can’t get Osama and we can’t seem to stop the violence in Iraq. Unfortunately this situation is the gift that keeps on giving for AQ recruitment.

The alternate version is the stereotype Liberal response of a wimpy Gore responding to the attack by letting fly a few cruise missiles and calling it a day. If this was the response some Arab governments would have been encouraged to give more support to AQ knowing the US lacked the will to retaliate. There would have been no constant Arab media stories on Jihadists resisting the US but the movement would have become even more dangerous with nation state support. With a Republican congress and Gore looking to re-election I don’t seriously believe this would have been his response, but I can entertain it as a hypothetical situation.

The Bush, Powell version, is that Powell sets the response. Saddam is seen as a threat but is put on the back burner due to a lack of resources to go after him and Osama at the same time. The Afghanistan operation follows his doctrine of overwhelming force and the Taliban are swiftly defeated. Lets say that with the additional resources Tora Bora results in a slaughter of the Taliban but Osama still escapes to Pakistan. Musharraf is given the ultimatum that either he finds Osama or we go in. Seeing how quickly the Taliban folded the Pakistani government agrees to co- operate with the US and after several months of fighting the Pashtun forces fold and Osama is killed attempting to flee Pakistan. The Arab/Jihadist media has some anti American propaganda moments but also shows AQ being destroyed in a hopeless fight. Arab governments like Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Iran see that the US is now ready to take on the next threat, and none of these dictators would want to support AQ and give us the excuse to go after them. Without any safe haven AQ gradually fades as a movement.

With the Iraq situation the problem is convincing people that confrontation and the proper use of force, as in the last scenario, is still the way to defeat AQ. Quite frankly I don’t think this administration can make that case.

The Islamist ideology claims universal jurisdiction, offers the terrorist redemption beyond this life, and challenges the very essence of our system of government as an affront to God. Its combination of moral certainty and the appeal to a nebulous sense of grievance seems to be very attractive to some young men. Its adherents are making their presence felt, through violence, on every continent, and appear to be growing rapidly in numbers. The religious terrorist believes his violence is holy, and knows no moral boundary to his destructive aims. Coupled with access to highly destructive technologies, this makes the threat to us existential. They will find us whether we like it or not.

In response to this assertive ideology, our politicians, academics and journalists have failed to articulate a coherent and inspiring alternative. On the one hand, Islamist ideology offers to the impressionable youth, the percieved opportunity to engage in an apocalyptic struggle against the embodiment of evil (US/UK/Israel), with eternal salvation as the prize for martyrdom, and the recognition of peers meanwhile. The West is presented as vacuous and degenerate, Islam as modest and holy. We, on the other hand, have presented them with no clear reply. Indeed many of our most prominent academics seem only to ready to agree, in their hysterical desire to apologise endlessly for the imperialism and colonialism of previous generations.

It seems to me, however, that we cannot hope to defeat Islamism and Jihadism by force of arms alone. War is won in mens minds. The confident assertion, by prominent political leaders, of the philosophical values which distinguish western democracies, would be a good start. They might remind the world that only in the west can we speak freely, associate freely, acknowledge no ruler but the law, and dismiss our governments. From these values we derive our collective strength. We must speak to Islamists as well as potential recruits, and point out loudly the paradoxes in their world view. Unpalatable though it may seem, this might require us to challenge directly Islamic theology and cultural assumptions, as well as the violence. The doctrine of waqf is easily challenged, as is the intolerance inherent in Shari’a. It is not good enough for all discussion of the theology which inspires Islamists to be left to other Islamists, and when they cease to believe in the cause, they stop fighting(Ed Hussain, Hassan Butt).

We can of course lose spectacularly by the failure to deploy arms where necessary - the forthcoming nuclear arming of the Islamic Republic of Iran offers us the opportunity to be spectacularly defeated by opening up the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Indeed the maxim that war is won in mens minds, might come to apply to us in defeat, if a nuclear attack were to occur in the context of our current mood of confusion and defeatism. Interdicting the spread of weapons of highly destructive character is something we cannot avoid. If you think this is alarmist and imagine that a nuclear armed terrorist would stay his hand, ask yourself this: why would the jihadist not strike? I can’t think of a reason either. Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons by all necessary means.

I think we face a long, hard conflict, which will be physical and intellectual. It should start with trying to persuade friends who fail to perceive the problem.

Amen.

The bully concept an earlier poster talked about is applicable.

Some think AQ is the whole end all be all but that is proving wrong simply because there are over a billion muslims to draw from and the numbers are not actually showing real grassroots support for AQ or their wannabe copycats.

More to the point is differences even between the terrorist elements we see today.

Where most get this whole situation wrong is they buy into the MSM generalizations about the whole Mideast.

Some could advise you well that this is not the binary choice Sunni/Shiite stuff the media is peddling.

There are many sects involved other than them.

AQ is based on the most radical sect of Wahabbiest (SP) teachings where the only goal is total conquest with not a bit of quarter given and no political accommodation of any kind.

All of the groups that try to work the combination of terrorism and politics to take over areas like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Fatah, and even Hezzbolah are totally against their grain and sellouts as far as they are concerned.

Iran which has no love for Iraq only wishes destabilization of what they don’t want to have back as a potential enemy.

They will use religious divisions and AQ as a useful tool to keep Iraq weak and will do the same with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Iran will use their puppet players to gain political power by whatever means to control their zone of influence they wish to create.

Even worse Russia and China will play the game with them up to a point using them as puppets to confront and confound the west.

It is a complex mixture of religious and political gamesmanship which some think they can control, and for all our sakes, somebody better hope they can or it could end up really not pretty at all.