to a woman without a sense of belonging, mere life is all that matters.

It really is very easy.

I am a warrior.

Its the only thing I have ever been besides a student and even that was a means to the end. It permeates everything I do or am. It is the reason I raise my child the way I do, why I am on time, how I drive, the way I think. When I worked in an office, I ran it and did my job like I was in battle against an enemy. it is why I still do PT even though I don't have to. It is what makes me different from my relatives. It is why I have the friends (brothers) that I have. It is why I am in the profession I am in. Everything. Now, whether or not I am a good warrior or not is a different question all together.

Now, this is just my experience, but if you ask a communist what he/she is, they will tell you "I am a communist." When they ask a member of the FARC or SL, they invariably say Farucho or Senderista. I'll bet if you ask an Islamic terrorist, they will say "Muslim" or "Good Muslim". See my point?

You're killing me here. What do you want to belong to? If you're talking about a man, I can't help you, although my brother is a single parent and might be looking, he's a cop, so...:D

If you need an organization to join, you can sign on to my "Free the Oppressed Workers of Thailand", but Green Hat will probably kill us all before we even have the first meeting.

If you're just feeling down, buy yourself a knife from Mr. Harsey or a piece of gear from Eggroll, that would make me feel better.

Or we can start a thread just to make fun of Sacamuelas and if he fights back, I'll ban him. That makes me feel better just thinking about it.

Yes, and even though they think of themselves as warriors, they still identify with a fanatic politio-religious ideology.

And that is the fascinating part. There are people taking advantage of their willingness towards united self-sacrifice.

NDD:

That is how you see yourself. I agree with you, in your case, it describes you accurately.

Others do not have your clarity, and see themselves as they wish they were, rather than how others see them or how they actually are.

You allude to that with your Muslim analogy. I would say that Mohammed Atta and OBL see themselves as good Muslims. I dare say that while most Muslims may agree with them, the majority of the world do not.

Does that make them good Muslims because they and others see them as such, or murderers and terrorists because that is how they are and we see them as such.

In short, do we define ourselves, or do our actions or others' opinions define us?

TR

Oustanding question and straight to the heart of the matter!

IMO, since the Muslim world refuses to define themselves as peaceful Allah-fearing folk, their actions (or lack there of) and our opinions of Islam as a violent ideology bent on our and the Jews extermination is, by default, the definition they will be stuck with.

If you don't define yourself, others will do it for you.

A lesson politicians learn early if they want to stay in politics. Also a lesson learned early on an A Team.

LOL, on all of it. Obviously I cannot join your movement, Mr. Liberator, until I learn the weapons. Perhaps a trip to Western Oregon is in order soon. Maybe I can make it a double feature if there is a gun show.


it is a sad day indeed when the jawbreaker has to substitute for a triple eeeewww.

And therein lies the problem. I agree with you, they would probably say "I am a good Muslim." Their actions of terrorism in their minds do not contradict that self image. They equate being a "good Muslim" with terrorism against us. And they have followers.

That is why I say we are at war with Islam, at this time, in this place, as practiced by the visible adherents in the forefront of the ideology. And they are at war with us. Its kind of silly, IMO, for them to be at war with us in the name of Islam and for us to say we are not at war with them and their Islam.

With the exceptions as noted by GH in Asia and others.

I have to disagree here, NDD. I think we're making an overly-broad generalization. That being, how would the Muslim world define themselves? The earlier comparison to Catholicism is a bit mistaken, I think, in that Catholicism is strictly hierarchical, with one voice at the top. That being, if the Pope "defines" the Catholic world as such, it is such (or else you aren't a Catholic). But there is no corresponding authority in the Muslim world. Getting a sunni, shi'ite, wahabi, and a sufi all together to agree on exactly how to 'define' themselves is just going to end in disaster.

A more apt comparison would be saying, "The Christian world needs to define itself as...." Put in that light, it's obvious that it's a very difficult, if not impossible request. Some groups are so broad that's it's impossible to get a consensus on anything.

As to the matter of Islam at large, no, I don't think we are at war with all Muslims. It's simply the squeaky-wheel problem. You hear every day about a very violent, very media-savvy minority of a billion-plus population. You never hear about the silent majority, if for no other reason than that they're -not- blowing anything up.

--Dan

I'm not asking them to all agree on which side of the plate the salad fork goes or even any particular interpretation of the Quoran. I am simply asking them all to agree that blowing up women and children in a pizza parlor or on a bus or mutilating the bodies of US contractors and laughing about it on tv is a bad thing. I'm not even asking all of them to do that - just their religious leaders who should be setting the example. We can deal with the rest. Like I said, if they won't define themselves as being against terrorism and murder, then we get to define them as being for it. No fence sitting. No fatwas calling for the murder of Americans because they are Americans. Or Jews simply because they are Jews.

I never said we are at war with all Muslims.

They may not have a Pope, but they've sure as hell got their Bishops and Cardinals. And we're looking for most of them.

We dont hear them denouncing the violence either, atleast not as loudly as the minority screaming about killing us.

You don't hear about the silent majority because they are silent.

We expressed more opposition to sending 7 Green Hats to Ft. Benning to be drill instructors than I see from the Muslim world regarding terrorism.

The most you will get, that I have seen is "We regret the loss of life in...today."

That's not denouncing.

Look at the outrage American Catholics expressed over the priest thing. They quit sending money to the church, etc. The lay people were harder on the church than the Pope.

CAIR's Shameful Silence
By Joel Mowbray
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 5, 2004

Witnessing the gruesome attacks on four Americans in Fallujah last week would thoroughly sicken any fellow American—except for one very prominent American-Muslim organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

In a statement issued shortly after the gory murders, CAIR said that it “condemned the mutilation of those killed in Iraq on Wednesday.� The slaughter of these men was not “murder,� though, it was merely a “killing.�

Nowhere in the statement, in fact, did CAIR condemn the murder of the four Americans.

Nowhere in the statement did CAIR condemn setting on fire the cars the men were driving.

Nowhere in the statement did CAIR condemn the parading of the charred bodies through the street or the hanging of one of the headless corpses hanging from a bridge over the Euphrates River as the locals stoned it.

This is no mere oversight or a simple semantic slip. In the press release’s second paragraph, CAIR explains, “The mutilations violated both Islamic and international norms of conduct during times of war.�

What “war�? The war ended long ago, even long before Saddam’s beard was examined for lice and other living creatures. What has been going on since can only be described as “terrorism,� not “war.�

But CAIR clearly sees this as a “war� between legitimate foes, going so far as to call “on all parties to the conflict to respect the sanctity of the dead and the sensitivities of their families.� The only parties, though, are the American-led coalition forces attempting to build a democracy and the terrorists trying to prevent it.

So why is CAIR calling on “all parties� as if there were a war between two legitimate sides? Probably because CAIR doesn’t view terrorists as terrorists.

In other words, an American Muslim organization has taken the same stance as much-publicized Fallujah cleric Sheikh Khalid Ahmed, who condemned only the mutilations as contrary to Islam—CAIR’s reasoning as well—but not the murders.

And this isn’t the only time CAIR has refused to condemn terrorism.

CAIR’s spokesman was given the opportunity to condemn Hamas and Islamic Jihad by the Washington Post in November 2001. His response was telling: “It’s not our job to go around denouncing.� Asked a similar question about Hamas and Hezbollah by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February 2002, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called such queries a “game� and explained, “We’re not in the business of condemning.�

But when Israel is to blame, CAIR seems to be very much “in the business of condemning.�

After Israel recently killed the founder of Hamas—a man responsible for the deaths of 52 mostly young Palestinian suicide bombers and 377 mostly civilian Israelis—CAIR saw fit to “condemn� the Jewish state without a moment’s pause. In its press release, CAIR said it “condemned the assassination of a wheelchair-bound Palestinian Muslim religious leader, calling it an act of ‘state terrorism.’�

CAIR couldn’t bring itself to call the founder of one of the bloodiest terrorist organizations on earth even a “militant,� let alone a “terrorist.� To them, a man with the blood of over 400 people on his hands was a handicapped “religious leader.� Seems awfully instructive about the kind of Islam they must follow if they label terrorist masterminds “religious leaders.�

All of this could be happily ignored if CAIR was some fringe organization, but it is not. The group represents Muslims in the media and to the government and touts itself in its press releases as “America's largest Islamic civil liberties group� with “25 regional offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada.�

Read a news story on American Muslims or on Islamic terrorism or flip on a cable news channel, and there is CAIR, being held up as the representative of American Muslims.

But what kind of American Muslim would want to be represented by a group that refuses to condemn the brutal murder of four Americans or any number of different terrorist organizations? Let’s hope not many.

Sure they do. But there's a misleading implication, I would submit, in a statement like that. The imam leading prayer in a Connecticut mosque is apples and oranges away from the imam hanging idolaters from lamp posts in Pakistan.

You are correct in your idea of definitions, however. I agree; I wasn't arguing that we're (ever) going to have a pan-world Muslim orthodoxy; but it is not too much to ask that Muslims (or anyone else) not blow up innocent folks.

The point of my post was that it's very important to be careful when lumping groups of people together. Would a Christian stick up for the actions of Eric Rudolph? A soldier for William Calley? I would hope not, but they do demonstrate the problems with judging a large, disparate group by the actions of a small (if vocal) minority.

Oh, and as for the 'war with Islam' bit, I wasn't referring to you specifically, but the title of the thread. :)

--Dan, devil's advocate

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today condemned the mutilation of those killed in Iraq on Wednesday. Four American civilian contractors were ambushed in their SUV's, burned, mutilated, dragged through the streets and then hung from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River, according to news reports.

CAIR said the mutilations violated both Islamic and international norms of conduct during times of war and called on all parties to the conflict to respect the sanctity of the dead and the sensitivities of their families.

The Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group cited a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad that prohibits mutilating bodies (Hadith 654.3).

In another tradition, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Do not kill women or children, or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place." (Al-Muwatta, Vol. 21, Hadith 9)

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has 25 regional offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada.

The voice of Islam in the US condemned the mutilation, not the murder.

I'm right, you're wrong.

I'm going to bed.

Let me clarify. I was playing devil's advocate earlier.

As to the larger issue, I think there is only one way that Islam will lose its reputation for terrorism, and that's if and only if the majority of Muslims out there in the world break their 'silence', and actively and vociferously denounce those that use violence to achieve their ends. Muslim terrorists need to be ferreted out, denounced, and demonized by that majority of their own faith that has heretofore ignored/downplayed their despicable deeds. No, it won't work immediately, and in the meantime, that's where our boys with the M4s come in. But over time, opinions will change and moderate.

But that's a big 'if'. And it depends on the willingness of the world Muslim community to denounce those that would do violence on their supposed "behalf", which is something that we are definitely not seeing right now.

--Dan

Your sig line seems applicable in this context.

I see how it is. Using my own sig line against me. :D

--Dan

The man who wrote this is both a Prof in Political Science and a Mufti. There are people who speak out. I wouldn't say I agree with everything he has to say here, but its his freedom to express his political opinion (he says that the Muslim world needs more men like Ted Kennedy :( ) I just thought his response was interesting.

MEMO TO MR. BIN LADEN: GO TO HELL!

Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.

This article has so far been published in Washington Post (02.16.03), TheGlobalist (02.14.03), Outlook India (02.15.03) The Arab News (Saudi Arabia 02.18.03), The Age (Melbourne, Australia 02.22.03), Afghan Times (02.23.02) Times of Central Asia (02.22.03) Iran and World (02.22.03) Tampa Tribune (02.21.03), Euthanesia News (02.22.03) DestinyWalking (02.22.03), St. Petersburgh Times (02.21.03). This Memo was also read by the author on the Roy Green Show (Ontario, Canada 02.20.03).

This is an American Muslim’s response to the Tape recorded message dated February 11th, 2003 by fugitive-terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

Mr. Binladen,

In the name of Allah, The Most Merciful, the Most Benevolent.

I begin by reciting some important principles of Islam to remind you that there is more to Islam than just a call to arms.

1. Islam was sent as mercy to humanity (Quran 4:79).

2. Do not make mischief on the earth (Quran 29:36).

3. People, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might know one another. The noblest of you before God is the most righteous of you. (49:13)

4. There are among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) upstanding nations that recite the message of God and worship throughout the night, who believe in God, who order honor and forbid dishonor and race in good works. These are the righteous. (3:113-114).

I am writing this to make it clear that there are Muslims in America and in the world who despise and condemn extremists and have nothing to do with Binladen and those like him for whom killing constitutes worship.

Islam was sent as mercy to humanity and not as an ideology of terror or hatred. It advocates plurality and moral equality of all faiths (Quran 2:62, 5:69). To use Islam, as a justification to declare an Armageddon against all non-Muslims is inherently unIslamic – it is a despicable distortion of a faith of peace. One of Allah’s 99 names in the Quran is “Al Salam� which means Peace. Thus in a way Muslims are the only people who actually worship peace. Today this claim sounds so empty, thanks to people like you, Mr. Bin Laden. You and those like you are dedicated to killing and bringing misery to people wherever they are. God blessed you with the capacity to lead and also endowed you with enormous resources. You could have used your influence in Afghanistan to develop it, to bring it out of poverty and underdevelopment and show the world what Islam can do for those who believe in it. You chose to provoke and bring war to a people who had already been devastated by wars.

Yes many innocent people lost their lives in America’s war on Afghanistan and many more might lose their lives in Iraq. This is indeed regrettable. But we must never forget as to how the West is divided over this and how nations and people within nations are agonizing in Europe and in America over this decision to go to war in Iraq. While many Americans and Europeans oppose the war, Muslim nations have already agreed to cooperate in this war. No Muslim leader has tried to play the role of a statesman on this issue. It is a tragedy that there is not a single Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter or Nelson Mandela in the entire Muslim world who would stand up and speak for justice!

Before we rush to condemn America we must remember that even today millions of poor and miserable people all across the world are lining up outside US embassies eager to come to America, not just to live here but to become an American. No Muslim country today, can claim that people of other nations and other faiths see it as a promise of hope, equality, dignity and prosperity.

Yes, we American Muslims will continue to challenge the Bush administrations’ proposal to wage war against Iraq. We think a regime change in Washington is as necessary as a regime change in Baghdad, but that is an intramural affair. Once the war is declared, make no mistake Mr. Saddam Hussain and Mr. Bin Laden, We are with America. We will fight with America and we will fight for America. We have a covenant with this nation, we see it as a divine commitment and we will not disobey the Quran (9:4) – we will fulfill our obligations as citizens to the land that opened its doors to us and promised us equality and dignity even though we have a different faith. I am sure Mr. Bin Laden, you can neither understand nor appreciate this willingness to accept and welcome the other.

Sure at this moment out of anger, frustration and fear, some in America have momentarily forgotten their own values. I am confident that, God willing, this moment of shock and insecurity will pass and America will once again become the beacon of freedom, tolerance and acceptance that it was before September 11th. On that day Mr. Binladen, you not only killed 3000 innocent Americans, many of whom were also Muslims, but you signed the death warrants of many innocent people who will die in this war on terror and many more who will live but will suffer the consequences, the pain and the misery of war. Before September 11th, the US was giving aid to Afghanistan and was content to wait for the Iraqi people to free themselves and the rest of the world from their dictator. On that day you changed the rules of the game and Muslims in many places are suffering as a direct consequence.

When the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his companions fought in the name of Islam, Allah made them victorious and glorified them in this world. They made Islam the currency of human civilization for over a millennium. You and your men on the other hand face nothing but defeat, global ridicule and contempt and run and hide like rats in caves and dungeons. You live in the dark. Your faith neither enlightens you nor enables you to live in the light and you have made Islam the currency of hate and violence.

Let me tell you that I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any “Islamic state� established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best. The US, patriot act not withstanding is still a more Islamic (just and tolerant) state than Afghanistan ever was under the Taliban.

Remember this: Muslims from all over the world who wished to live better lives migrated to America and Muslims who only wished to take lives migrated to Afghanistan to join you.

We will not follow the desires of people (like you) who went astray and led many astray from the Straight Path. (Quran 5:77).

I conclude by calling upon you Mr. Bin Laden and your Al Qaeda colleagues and Mr. Saddam Hussain to surrender to International Courts and take responsibility for your actions and protect thousands of other innocent Muslims from becoming the victims of the wars you bring upon them.

Doesn't make a good story. Be careful of assuming that because the media doesn't report it, it doesn't happen.

What's that line?

"Ma'am, you could fill books with what you don't read in the newspapers."

Phew. I'm glad I didn't get whupped while I was asleep.
Referring to insurgency, Bard E. O'Neill emphasises that by generalising, a counter-insurgency force limits its own effectiveness. I think that it is therefore very dangerous for US policy, or even just our thoughts, to be aimed against Islam in general. If we percieve our enemy to be Islam as a whole, Islam will effectively become our enemy.

IMO, if and when we invade Saudi, Iran, etc, it would be better to have the ability to co-opt the 'silent majority' than have them formed against us.

Technically, we might be at war with Islam, but I think that THINKING that we are could be dangerous.

Solid

Bangladesh
 

Up to OEF, Bangladesh was one of the most corrupt nations in the world; however, free of state funded terrorist groups. After OEF, a large number of armed militants came into Chittagong and reportedly slipped off into the Jungle. This was all reported by Indian Intel. The up side is that we still pay more money to the Gov't of Bangladesh and they are on our side overall. The down side is that some government official is getting a new BMW for looking the other way when an RPG goes off.

I believe if there was even a single public outcry from the clerics and other moderate Muslims, over the terrorist attacks that happened on 9.11 and continue to happen on a daily basis around the Globe in the namme of Allah we would hear it.

When the Catholic Priest scandals started there were a large outcrying of the catholic church that was televised.

When the Atlanta abortion clinic bombing happened "in the Name of God" there was a public outcry from both pew sitters and pastors/clergy.

I may very well be skewed in my thinking, but I believe if they were to stand up someone would broadcast/publish it.

Again my .02

I have been kicked off and IP banned from more than a few Muslim and Islamic sites. A great majority of these boards were populated by - surprise - radical Muslims. They see America as gulping up the lands of Muhammad, providing financial and political support for Muslim/Arab leaders who oppress their people, and generally keeping the Muslim religion down.

Yeah, they quote alot from the Koran - "Allah be willing" etc... - but in my opinion they see an opportunity to combine terrorism with religion to foster hate. To me it is this simple.

And because they use religion as a conduit to recruit more radicals and promote more hate they have in effect hijacked that religion.

Why? Because so many moderate Muslims allow it. They may not want to participate, but they are secretly happy that Islam is the flavor of the month, so to speak. People are now centering their attention on the ME and the moderates want this to continue.

Until the moderates realize that change comes from within, and not by trying to intimidate another country's population through terrorism, than I can honestly say that they have allowed the religion to be hijacked. They are co-conspirators and should shoulder almost as much blame as terrorists.

So yes, we are at war with Islam. When they can produce leaders that physically remove terrorists from the population than they have started to get my attention. When they have protests in the streets denouncing terrorists acts, or police their own population by thwarting future terrorism, then they have my attention.

When they stop blaming the world - the Western world - for their lot in life and start creating a means to peace in their religion/culture/geography/whatever, they will become genuine partners in the world community.

The more I see the Muslim world conduct themselves - collectively - the more I believe that Islam needs a Reformation. It can only happen from within.

They are nowhere close to this type of paradigm shift. So in the meantime maybe they should worry about us killing them for a change, instead of the other way around.

I see your point, but IMO, the outcry over pedophile priests came from the Press and the Catholic population. Many Bishops and Clergy were very slow to open up this festering wound. Especially when they had to know about it years and years before it happened.

Admitting there was a crime after you have been busted is much different than policing yourself. As a lifelong Catholic I was proud of the Catholic population for stepping up and demanding that the church do something.

Same with Islam. The population needs to act collectively and in unison or else they risk a cultural war with the West. Like I said, they need a Reformation - a 98 Thesis on the Mosque door - to gain control of that religion.

I just wonder if the West has the balls and the attention span to force this internal paradigm shift, because they are showing no signs of changing. In fact, the more they get their message out there and gain support among socialists like the Spanish Govt, the farther away we are from realizing a peaceful Islam.

The more we pull out of engagements in Muslim lands the stronger their resolve becomes. The more wicked their attacks (i.e. Fallujah) become, the more the West is left aghast. And when they see that, they design more horrible attacks to get even stronger responses. And thus their resolve grows even more.

Just my .02.

Interesting. Where I live, I heard nothing about either one of those. But I have heard Muslim clerics denouncing terrorism.

ERRI
 

BANGKOK, THAILAND: Thailand may withdraw its forces from Iraq earlier than planned due to concerns about violence in the country after the United States transfers power to Iraqis on June 30, a government spokesman has said. The Defense Ministry will conduct a review on whether 443 Thai troops on a humanitarian mission in Iraq should come back in September as planned or sooner, said ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Palangun Klaharn on Saturday."We have to look at future variables, whether there will be other (nations') troops withdrawn from Iraq or not. "But right now we plan to stay there to finish off the full year," Palangun told The Associated Press by telephone.

Your point?

None, other than the top of my head. Seemd slightly relevant to the conversation though.

I'm starting to think saying we are at war with only Islamic fundalmentalist terrorists and not Islam is akin to saying we are at war with kamikazes but not the Japanese.

• Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades
• Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
• Ahyaul Turaz al-Islami
• al Assirat al Moustaquim
• Al Barq
• Al Gama’a al Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
• Al Ittihad al Islami (AIAI)
• Al Jama’a al Islamiyyah al Muqatilah bi Libya
• Al Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
• Al Qa'nun
• Al Qaida
• Al Tawhid
• Al-Badhr Mujahidin (al-Badr)
• Allied Democratic Forces (ADF)
• Ansar al Islam
• Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
• Asbat al Ansar
• Asif Raza Commandoes
• Brotherhood of al-Ma’unah
• East Turkestan Islamic Movement
• Free Aceh Movement
• Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front (IBDA-C)
• HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
• Harakat ul Jihad I Islami (HUJI) (Movement of Islamic Holy War)
• Harakat ul Jihad I Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B) (Movement of Islamic Holy War)
• Harakat ul Mujahidin (HUM) (Movement of Holy Warriors)
• Harkat ul Ansar
• Hezb e Islami
• Hizb ut Tahrir al Islami
• Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddin (HIG)
• Hizballah (Party of God)
• Islami Inquilabi Mahaz
• Islami Jamaat e Tulba
• Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Sites
• Islamic Army of Aden (IAA)
• Islamic Front
• Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB)
• Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
• Islamic Party of Turkestan
• Islamic Students League
• Jaish e Mohammed E Tanzeem(JEM)
• Jamaat I Islami
• Jamaat ul Mujahideen
• Jamiat ul Mujahideen (JUM)
• Jammu and Kashmir Freedom Force
• Jemaah Islamiya (JI)
• Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM)
• Lashkar e Tayyiba (LT)
• Liberation Party
• Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
• Moro Islamic Liberation Front
• Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
• Movement for the Struggle of the Jordanian Islamic Resistance
• Mujahedeen Kompak
• Mujahedin e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)
• New People’s Army (NPA)
• Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
• People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (PAGAD)
• Return Party
• Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
• Salifiya Jihadiya
• Sipah I Sahaba/Pakistan
• Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR)
• Taliban
• Tehreek e Jaferia Pakistan (TJP)
• Tehreek e Nafaz e Shariat e Mohammadi (TNSM)
• Tehrik e Jehad e Islami
• Tunisian Combatant Group (TCG)
• Tunisian Islamic Front
• Turkish Hizballah
http://www.terrorism.com/index.php

I'm with you NDD !!!

I just saw a piece on the rise of religion, specifically Christianity, in the US. Media coverage of religious themes is up 300% in the last 10 years and religious article sales, not including movies, is an $8 billion business now. Cardinal Mahoney was interviewed and said that in his opinion more than anything else 9/11 and the ongoing terrorist attacks are the reason for the rediscovery of Christianity. People are scared.

Polarization?

You see, what the good people at terrorism.com fail to point out is that that list of groups is actually onlt 6 guys running around causing trouble. Their names are Phil, Steve, Tom, Fred, Albert, and Akhmed.

LOL - yeah right. Do I need to deprogram you for Stockholm Syndrome?

Fag Car Racing...???
 

NDD, Oh great one. I was going along reading this for me education and had to come back to this comment, You don't mean NASCAR too do you? (trying to hold back tears now) Bill

Mr. Harsey,
Out of respect to you, I will refrain from further comment regarding the mind-numbing "sport" of going 'round and 'round in circles in a car painted like a clown mobile.

LOL! Your right!

Blair on Iraq
 

Why we must never abandon this historic struggle in Iraq
The Observer ^ | Sunday April 11, 2004 | Tony Blair

We are locked in a historic struggle in Iraq. On its outcome hangs more
than the fate of the Iraqi people. Were we to fail, which we will not,
it is more than 'the power of America' that would be defeated. The hope
of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out.
Dictators would rejoice; fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant.
Every nascent strand of moderate Arab opinion, knowing full well that
the future should not belong to fundamentalist religion, would be set
back in bitter disappointment. If we succeed - if Iraq becomes a
sovereign state, governed democratically by the Iraqi people; the
wealth of that potentially rich country, their wealth; the oil, their
oil; the police state replaced by the rule of law and respect for human
rights - imagine the blow dealt to the poisonous propaganda of the
extremists. Imagine the propulsion toward change it would inaugurate
all over the Middle East.

In every country, including our own, the fanatics are preaching their
gospel of hate, basing their doctrine on a wilful perversion of the
true religion of Islam. At their fringe are groups of young men
prepared to conduct terrorist attacks however and whenever they can.
Thousands of victims the world over have now died, but the impact is
worse than the death of innocent people.

The terrorists prey on ethnic or religious discord. From Kashmir to
Chechnya, to Palestine and Israel, they foment hatred, they deter
reconciliation. In Europe, they conducted the massacre in Madrid. They
threaten France. They forced the cancellation of the President of
Germany's visit to Djibouti. They have been foiled in Britain, but only
for now.

Of course they use Iraq. It is vital to them. As each attack brings
about American attempts to restore order, so they then characterise it
as American brutality. As each piece of chaos menaces the very path
toward peace and democracy along which most Iraqis want to travel, they
use it to try to make the coalition lose heart, and bring about the
retreat that is the fanatics' victory.

They know it is a historic struggle. They know their victory would do
far more than defeat America or Britain. It would defeat civilisation
and democracy everywhere. They know it, but do we? The truth is, faced
with this struggle, on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of
Western opinion is sitting back, if not half-hoping we fail, certainly
replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find.

So what exactly is the nature of the battle inside Iraq itself? This
is not a 'civil war', though the purpose of the terrorism is
undoubtedly to try to provoke one. The current upsurge in violence has
not spread throughout Iraq. Much of Iraq is unaffected and most Iraqis
reject it. The insurgents are former Saddam sympathisers, angry that
their status as 'boss' has been removed, terrorist groups linked to
al-Qaeda and, most recently, followers of the Shia cleric,
Muqtada-al-Sadr.

The latter is not in any shape or form representative of majority Shia
opinion. He is a fundamentalist, an extremist, an advocate of violence.
He is wanted in connection with the murder of the moderate and much
more senior cleric, Ayatollah al Khoei last year. The prosecutor, an
Iraqi judge, who issued a warrant for his arrest, is the
personification of how appallingly one-sided some of the Western
reporting has become. Dismissed as an American stooge, he has braved
assassination attempts and extraordinary intimidation in order to
follow proper judicial process and has insisted on issuing the warrant
despite direct threats to his life in doing so.

There you have it. On the one side, outside terrorists, an extremist
who has created his own militia, and remnants of a brutal dictatorship
which murdered hundreds of thousands of its own people and enslaved the
rest. On the other side, people of immense courage and humanity who
dare to believe that basic human rights and liberty are not alien to
Arab and Middle Eastern culture, but are their salvation.

Over the past few weeks, I have met several people from the Iraqi
government, the first genuine cross-community government Iraq had seen.
People like Mrs Barwari, the Minister of Public Works, who has just
survived a second assassination attempt that killed her bodyguard;
people like Mr Zebari, the Foreign Minister. They are intelligent,
forward-looking, tolerant, dedicated to their country. They know that
'the occupation' can be used to stir up anti-coalition feeling; they,
too, want their country governed by its people and no one else. But
they also know that if we cut and run, their country would be at the
mercy of warring groups which are united only in their distaste for
democracy.

The tragedy is that outside of the violence which dominated the
coverage of Iraq, there are incredible possibilities of progress. There
is a huge amount of reconstruction going on; the legacy of decades of
neglect is slowly being repaired.

By 1 June, electricity will be 6,000MW, 50 per cent more than prewar,
but short of the 7,500MW they now need because of the massive opening
up of the economy, set to grow by 60 per cent this year and 25 per cent
the next.

The first private banks are being opened. A new currency is in
circulation. Those in work have seen their salaries trebled or
quadrupled and unemployment is falling. One million cars have been
imported. Thirty per cent now have satellite TV, once banned, where
they can watch al-Jazeera, the radical Arab TV station, telling them
how awful the Americans are.

The internet is no longer forbidden. Shrines are no longer shut.
Groups of women and lawyers meet to discuss how they can make sure the
new constitution genuinely promotes equality. The universities eagerly
visit Western counterparts to see how a modern, higher-education
system, free to study as it pleases, would help the new Iraq.

People in the West ask: why don't they speak up, these
standard-bearers of the new Iraq? Why don't the Shia clerics denounce
al-Sadr more strongly? I understand why the question is asked. But the
answer is simple: they are worried. They remember 1991, when the West
left them to their fate. They know their own street, unused to
democratic debate, rife with every rumour, and know its volatility.
They read the Western papers and hear its media. And they ask, as the
terrorists do: have we the stomach to see it through?

I believe we do. And the rest of the world must hope that we do. None
of this is to say we do not have to learn and listen. There is an
agenda that could unite the majority of the world. It would be about
pursuing terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and actively
remedying the causes around which they flourish on the other: the
Palestinian issue; poverty and development; democracy in the Middle
East; dialogue between main religions.

I have come firmly to believe the only ultimate security lies in our
values. The more people are free, the more tolerant they are of others;
the more prosperous, the less inclined they are to squander that
prosperity on pointless feuding and war.

But our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is
our complacency. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic
extremism to Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on 11
September 2001? When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they
seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists,
to say nothing of what it would do to the Iraqis?

Or if we scorned our American allies and told them to go and fight on
their own, that somehow we would be spared? If we withdraw from Iraq,
they will tell us to withdraw from Afghanistan and, after that, to
withdraw from the Middle East completely and, after that, who knows?
But one thing is for sure: they have faith in our weakness just as they
have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are,
the more they will come after us.

It is not easy to persuade people of all this; to say that terrorism
and unstable states with WMD are just two sides of the same coin; to
tell people what they don't want to hear; that, in a world in which we
in the West enjoy all the pleasures, profound and trivial, of modern
existence, we are in grave danger.

There is a battle we have to fight, a struggle we have to win and it
is happening now in Iraq.