Islamic terrorism: what’s in a name?
It’s an old old story: the left refuses to name this enemy. Either they can’t even say the word “terrorist,” or they certainly can’t use any modifier that implies that Islam has anything to do with it.
And Obama, as a man of the left, follows suit.
In the wake of a large and deadly attack such as the one in Orlando, where it is clear that the perpetrator was an Islamic (or Islamicist, or radical Islamic) terrorist, it is glaringly apparent that Obama is refusing to call the attack what it is. And this is a weakness that Donald Trump is determined to exploit, and rightly so.
Does it matter what we call them? Obviously, both Obama and Trump—coming from opposite sides of the question—agree on the fact that it does matter, or this rhetorical battle wouldn’t be going on. By using the words he uses, Trump wants to signal his resolve to oppose Islamic terrorism, as well as opposition to PC leftist language. What does Obama want to signal? Deference to the Muslim community, emphasis on his underlying policy goal of increased gun control, and minimization of the hugely increased threat from ISIS that occurred on his watch while he poo-pooed it.
The always-intelligent Richard Fernandez has this to say about it:
The administration has a security model that is not really working. FBI are looking for ordinary criminals and “hate mongers” and, armed with these descriptions, keep letting the usual suspects go because they don’t fit the bill. Yet time and again they come back as a surprise. Maybe the greatest trick Islamic terrorism ever pulled was convincing Obama it didn’t exist.
The photo that goes with the article has the caption “Can’t solve a problem you can’t define.” That’s probably true, but I don’t think that Islamic terrorism “convinced Obama it didn’t exist.” Perhaps Fernandez is being sarcastic there, and he doesn’t really think Obama is convinced of that either, but at any rate I believe that Obama—and certainly the FBI—know full well that it exists and that it is here. Obama doesn’t want to admit it for the reasons I’ve stated above. And the FBI and other agencies are somewhat hamstrung by the guidelines laid done from the top, plus a very real dilemma involving how proactive they can be and still preserve our liberties.
I doubt that most of the people who work for the FBI would refuse to name the enemy if left to their own devices. And I doubt they are unaware of the danger of radicalized Muslim jihadis in our midst. But what are they to do if a person has engaged in “mere” associations, and “mere words,” and if they have to be careful to protect that person’s civil rights (especially for US citizens such as the Orlando perpetrator)? Marco Rubio (remember him?) hit the nail on the head about this when speaking of the Orlando massacre:
There are two parts to the problem of jihadis in the US. The first is the nomenclature; what we call people is not just semantics, it signifies the way we are looking at the issue and the way we will approach it. The second is what we will actually do about it. If you remember the Patriot Act that was passed in the wake of 9/11, it brought up the dilemmas inherent in that second part—the action part—dilemmas we’ve been fighting over ever since.
Barack Obama has been deficient in both regards, speech and action. Donald Trump seems to be doing okay with the first part, but is somewhat vague on the second. Rubio, in my opinion, is grappling more intelligently with both parts, but he is not in line to be president. Hillary Clinton, Trump’s opponent, seems to be following the basic Obama playbook, which does not inspire confidence.
One other fact about the Orlando massacre is that, unlike other terrorist attacks on our soil, it targeted a very specific group: gay people. This is a group that has been allied much more with the Democrats and the left than it has with the right, but the left doesn’t seem all that energized to protect them, and that has not gone unnoticed:
Oh sure, all year I’ve been playing the “Bernie or Hillary?” game with all the other default-Democrats in my social and professional circles. But this is no longer some kind of game. Our lives are on the line. Although I voted for Hillary in the primary, I now cringe inwardly with shame and embarrassment at having done so, and in November I will vote for Trump.
Why? Yes, I know that Trump is an a**hole, Trump is a clown, Trump is a motormouth buffoon. You don’t have to convince me of that. But he’s also the only person saying anything about putting the brakes on Islamic extremism, and in light of what happened last night in Orlando, suddenly that is the only issue that really matters when it comes to the health, well-being and safety of the queer community.
Ted Cruz—another man who wanted to be president—has astutely called out the left on this:
If you’re a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder,” he said.
They won’t meet the challenge, despite paying lip service to the LGBT community.
Trump, “The days of deadly ignorance are done.”
“What does Obama want to signal?” My guess is that he doesn’t want to validate Islamist terrorism as a legitimate expression of Islam.
The USA Patriot Act (Public Law 107-56) was actually recycled from the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 and Antiterrorism Amendments Act of 1995, which had been watered down for Public Law 104-132, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. At the time, President Clinton, already well occupied by the al Qaeda threat, was critical of Congress for not granting him the counter-terrorism tools he requested in the 1995 acts. Congress subsequently approved the counter-terrorism tools for President Bush after 9/11 that it had denied to President Clinton in 1995-1996.
Which is to say, the Democrats know the issue. But they made a political Faustian bargain and painted themselves into a corner – by their own choosing – with their automatic political opposition to President Bush. Counter-terrorism should never have been a partisan issue. Bush framed the issue with the sensible approach of excoriating jihadism while not conflating it with Islam as a whole.
But Democrats chose to make a political Faustian bargain that won them the White House but has cut them off from Bush’s sensible approach and cornered them into Obama’s nonsensical approach.
Its more important to know why they do not say it, or refuse to say it…
because its the same thing as wanting someone to admit guilt, and understanding that in the future, those looking at the tapes wont find them saying that… in fact, recently a lot of the things going on has to do with a repainted history later, than a accurate talk today… confusing yes, but hitorical evidence lasts longer than the historical event and this is about making history, rewriting it, and then exploiting the event.
in any discussion there is a tacit if not implicit agreement to concede… the left refuses to concede on any point, as if squating on the thing means they win if you cant knock them off, and if you need them to concede and they refuse, they win by a bizarre concept of occupation (posession being 9/10ths?)
then there is the idea that those that control language need not be controlled by language they dont concede to.
then there is the point that if they dont say it, they seem to be in service and are open to the freebies, hints, lucre, etc. from those bodies.
IF you dont know how they work what they do later and so on, your just going to be confused and deny what someone tells you is the game. reading the stuff that is key would help, but its not the stuff anyone reads if recommended (10 years of testing that theory and thats the finding).
for instance, why would the left suddenly want to get rid of the southern stuff they say is racist? while the taliban would blow up the evidence of prior religions?
its pretty much the same when you have a society that believes in “proof” so much… after all the confederacy stuff they are erasing is THEIR negative history, not just something they declare it to mean.
when done, how can you call them out on their southern lack of civil rights and such? you cant. they have used one concept to get permission and action to remove another concept that serves them… just like the idea of womens freedom is the concept that gets them to enable and make ok their need for eugenics to remove the dominant cultuyre that negates their goals and is willing or was willing to fight to have them.
peoples been pretty stupid, and calling them geniuses for it wont work (at least with me and others who know this game)… they are deadly serious and the armchair people dicussing this are NOT anywhere near as serious, as they prefer to be entertained not actually know the truth or methods if they are not entertained…
to them this is a war… and concession is to give back something they won, so they refuse to concede…
“It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war.” –Vladimir Lenin
now if you didnt know how this war is fought, and you thought the narcisists are arrogant for not conceding, and the left is just stupid for it, and all that, then your the loser trying to make sense of how your losing!!!!!!
its terribly frustrating that people refuse to learn the game they are stuck in because THEY would have to concede that they were tricked, are in the game, they are ignorant as they didnt study anything related to it, and so on. So they dont
i had already laid out that most of this stuff is admitted by past soviets as their game, their people, their training and even we are their target.
if not, why are we moving closer and closer to a conflict with them after they have prepared us with ideological games and traitors to lose that conflict? and would it be on the 100th anniversary of the creation of their state?
quoting:Many of the strategies and tactics employed by the Soviets–such as the dialectical and the “two steps forward, one step” back strategies–are foreign to many Western minds. But a thorough understanding of these strategies is paramount if one hopes to counter them
yup, and i cant even get a discussion on them as they are believed not to exist despite people trying to understand the results!!
so that may clue you in to the democrat republican troika in which an outsider not led by them is so bad the whole worlds collusive leaders want to act to save their game
the soviets bragged for decades that the islamic world was theirs post hitler when they took over… where is THAT in any article or anything you have read for the past 8 or more years?
Communists are willing to take “one step back” in order to “move two steps forward”; giving a false impression they are in a position of weakness; when, in fact, they are strong. Such a strategy can provide an opportunity to offer “concessions” to the enemy–but only “concessions” that provide the ability to move “two steps forward.” The goal is to goad the enemy into offering real concessions (i.e. compromise), while only offering token concessions that have no real lasting consequences on the long-range strategy of crushing the enemy.
by refusing to say X they are getting concessions in terms of speaking and speaking is thinking… you think in a “voice” and so causing you to use words and not others forces you to think a certain way not others.
the actions your seeing are keeping us from paying attention to the real things as we fear the rare thing that is horrid!!!
you are refusing to pay attention to the real threat…
There has been six periods of “glasnost” dating back to the 20s… During all of the so-called glasnost periods, the United States and the West were duped into believing the Soviets were changing their tune–only to watch the Soviets return to their oppressive and tyrannical ways after securing concessions from the United States.
Like a master chess player, they think ten steps ahead. Stalin’s henchman Lavrenti Beria said in the early 50s, “Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.”
hows this for being ignorant for a long long time:
When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of communism; we will not take it under the label of socialism. These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much. We will take the United states under labels we have made very lovable; We will take it under liberalism, under progressivism, under democracy. But, take it we will”
Alexander Tractenberg at the national convention of communist parties, Madison square garden 1944
and they are controlling the labels of one of the hammers, islam. by using someone else, someone else will take the response of punishment, not them. like the fighting fish, the two will waste resources and all manner of things leaving them weaker and weaker…
in 1944 in the open they planned on fomenting (this form of) liberalism… their violent arm that laid bombs became presidential… and everyone is confused, and has not paid attention to the quotes as to who controls this part of islam, and bragged about it.
if your waiting to trip over this and wake up, good luck
i find that if you point it out, they wont read, you wont read, no one wants to know its been since WWII and before that they have been played slowly so as to change the very nature of their society… and refusal to accept who is behind it rather than that, they blame the outward force or tool, but never the hand in the velvet glove controlling the tool
I very much fear that we are only seeing the beginnings of home-grown Islamic terrorism in the United States.
As Bill Whittle wrote some years back, we may yet be able to solve this on the cheap. If not, we may look back wistfully, some day, on the times when a domestic attack that claimed a few dozen lives was considered large.
Keep your powder dry, folks.
Calling it “Islamic Terrorism” isn’t going to help in the near term, and you’ll never be able to say and change in terminology could have prevented any one terrorist attack, but it matters a lot in the long run.
People respond to how the rest of the world views them. If we are willing to say that there is something very wrong in the Muslim community, then individual Muslims who have extreme views (perhaps we should say the beginnings of extreme views since the ones who are already extremists don’t care what the rest of the world thinks) will realize that they are wrong for thinking the way they do. The Muslim community will work harder to reinforce certain views so that they are not collectively viewed as violent and so on. Its not unlike what happened with racism towards blacks over the last hundred years.
I think the key problem for liberals is that they don’t really know where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable Muslim beliefs. Supporting Hamas – Good! Calling the US Army a bunch of murderers in Iraq – Good! Saying al-Qaeda and similar groups have a point about the evils of US imperialism… Sure, why not! Bring all that hate to a night club in Florida – now its bad. But there is no underlying principal for why its bad because the left tolerates, and often encourages extremism when its expedient.
If they can’t say “terrorist”, they’ll never be able to say “Asymmetrical Fourth Generation Warfare”. I’m starting to wonder if we can be more accurate.
Waidmann
It may just be me (because I am so weary of the divide in this country and being perceived to be on the wrong side of that divide) but this incident feels like it is dissipating quickly. It does not seem to have the same force that James Foley’s beheading had, or the Paris attacks had. I think they are wearing us down. I can’t imagine what it will take to unite this country. Sometimes I imagine that it will have to be a horrible bomb where six degrees of separation allows almost every person in this country to be impacted by the loss of someone. I just feel like it will have to be that huge and honestly, I’m not even sure that will do it.
What I am reading on FB is amazing. It is mind boggling. It’s as if Obama is the great soother. And these people are looking the incident as a universal attack on gay people by bad guns. Gay people I know are responding like everyone who is not liberal did this and that they know they have a “target on their backs” but they won’t let the right wing meanies make them change, oh no! It is really very Alice in Wonderland.
Rubio correctly states that, “ultimately, this is going to take the Islamic world to reject radicalism”.
Then fails to state the corollary, which is that, that isn’t going to happen, since to do so requires revising the Qur’an, which can only be done by declaring Muhammad to have either been deluded or a liar about his central and most fundamental claim; that the Qur’an is Allah’s direct testimony, dictated to an illiterate Muhammad. Of course, the Islamic world can’t reject Muhammad’s claim because that would destroy Islam’s theological foundations causing it to collapse.
Eric,
Not to denigrate what Bush got right but any strategy that fails to or refuses to identify the source of the ideology being fought is ultimately, doomed to failure. Islam is that source.
In the other thread they tried to say that islam the relikgion of peace was first said by george bush, and so on.
I laughed… and laughed… how short their site..
and
I have been authorized by the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic to state here that these rumours are false. The Government of Russia gives every people the full right to govern itself on the basis of its laws and customs. The Soviet Government considers that the Sharia, as common law, is as fully authorized as that of any other of the peoples inhabiting Russia. Stalin 1920
The history you forgot or never knew:
Waidmann, that was good…
>>But there is no underlying principal for why its bad because the left tolerates, and often encourages extremism when its expedient.
The Left cannot make a persuasive case for morality when we play by their rules. The “as long as you don’t hurt anyone” sounds good, like with every leftist/prog policy & thought, but it’s a shallow philosophy once it’s flipped on its head. Utopia in practice it’s often less than advertised.
Hillary gave a speech today in Cleveland, with the focus on Orlando — and she doesn’t sound like Obama:
The full transcript is here.
I would like to know if anyone other than mysel knows this openly available history that is forgotten…
——————————————————————————–
Congress of the Peoples of the East
The Congress of the Peoples of the East was a multinational conference held in September 1920 by the Communist International in Baku, Azerbaijan (then part of Soviet Russia). The congress was attended by nearly 1,900 delegates from across Asia and Europe and marked a commitment by the Comintern to support revolutionary nationalist movements in the colonial “East”… the Baku Congress was dominated by lengthy speeches by leaders of the Russian Communist Party, including Grigory Zinoviev, Karl Radek, Mikhail Pavlovich, and Anatoly Skachko. Non-RCP delegates delivering major reports included Hungarian revolutionary Béla Kun and Turkish feminist Naciye Hanim.
[and no matter how many times i gave the clues out to read and discover the answers you guys SAY you want, it seems you do not want them!!!]
Historian E. H. Carr emphasized the Comintern’s “uncompromising” promotion of the notion of revolution combined with its willingness to compromise with Muslim traditions: “Muslim beliefs and institutions were treated with veiled respect, and the cause of world revolution narrowed down to specific and more manageable dimenstions. The Muslim tradition of jihad, or holy war against the infidel, was harnessed to a modern crusade of oppressed peoples against the imperialist oppressors, with Britain as the main target.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UC press
When the Soviet Union Entered World Politics
chapter: The Comintern and the Indian Revolution
India was at the center of the struggle between revolutionary Russia and the British Empire. In the Bolshevik geopolitics of revolution, a blow struck at British India would inflict a decisive defeat to British power in Asia, inspire anti-imperialist revolts from Syria to China, and so “set the East ablaze.”
Calculations such as these formed the basis of an audacious scheme to ignite a revolution among the Muslims of India launched under Comintern auspices in late 1920
the seeds of isis and AQ go back to that time, and even from there… even through the nazi periods…
if you know the history, you would know why russia invaded…
and that most of what you have heard about islam, afghanistan and so on is made up history that erases this openly available past you can read about…
in fact, when you read about britain and ghandi, you dont read much about this either… but if you do some research you will find that the people of ghandi family that came after were in the back pocket of russia..
what we have today has a pedigree that goes back, way back, and if you know the terminology, history, and so on, you would EASILY RECOGNISE it… but if your ignorant of that history, you will make stuff up to fill in the blanks or trust others to fill them in for you (and they will be much more entertaining!!!)
i have yet to meet anyone who wasnt from soviet russia and educated that would have any inkling of thsi stuff the treaties and so on, as no one here in the west they trust is telling them about it, and if not told theyd ont believe.
The Cambridge History of Islam: Volume 1B, The Central Islamic Lands Since 1918: Also goes over this history that today is never mentioned… ever… in fact most do not remember the commitern, and all these other organizations… thanks to western movies they think things like SMERSH are fictions and fictions are real… which is why churchill is not real and sherlock holmes is real to many..
by the way SMERSH did exist… an umbrella organisation for three independent counter-intelligence agencies in the Red Army formed in late 1942 or even earlier, but officially announced only on 14 April 1943. The name SMERSH was coined by Joseph Stalin. The main reason for its creation was to subvert the attempts by German forces to infiltrate the Red Army on the Eastern Front [it means death to spies]
funny people thinking they can understand things with most of the history they need to do so erased from their knowing and they too incurious to look it up and find it even if someone points to it!!!!
Janetoo-
It’s not just you, it’s me too.
Ann,
“That’s what I want to talk to you about. How we respond.” Hillary Rodham Clinton
Answer; “We must attack it with clear eyes, steady hands, unwavering determination and pride in our country and our values”
Patriotic pablum for the liberal masses. ISIS must be shaking in their sandals.
Speaking as an exhausted conservative, I have mostly fled the field, leaving it to Obamite liberals forever pointing their fingers at me, and jihadists advancing on the Obamite blind spots on their flanks and rear. The Obamites seem not to care about who their real enemy is. They hate me more than they love life.
The inability to face or even name the enemy means only one thing for the future.
I retreat further, anticipating horrors to come.
Hillary did NOTHING to stop radical Islamic terrorism. She helped it along with her stupid decisions in Libya and Syria.
And know this: Hillary wants money from foreign countries for her criminal foundation more than she wants to crack down on Islamic countries for all there terror promotion.
Art,
Is everything the result of commie machinations?
GB, yes to your question. Just like Eric’s answer to everything is conservative activism. Both are one note songs.
Whether Trump is sincere, no one can know nor is his record reassuring, in fact its highly disturbing.
That said, Islamic terrorism can hardly be to Trump’s benefit. Here’s his response in full, personally I can find nothing substantive to object to. But perhaps I missed something, judge for yourself.
“DONALD J. TRUMP ADDRESSES TERRORISM, IMMIGRATION, AND NATIONAL SECURITY”
Relax, Janetoo. Facebook is probably just censoring your feeds again.
Richard Fernandez is playing off a quote from “The Usual Suspects”
“Who is Keyser Soze? He is supposed to be Turkish. Some say his father was German. Nobody believed he was real. Nobody ever saw him or knew anybody that ever worked directly for him, but to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for Soze. You never knew. That was his power. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist. And like that, poof. He’s gone.
The quote is from Verbal Klint who we find out in the end is Keyser Soze. Fitting because it was right in front of us all the time, and we refused to see it.
baltimoron Says:
June 13th, 2016 at 3:38 pm…
I think the key problem for liberals is that they don’t really know where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable Muslim beliefs. …. But there is no underlying principal for why its bad because the left tolerates, and often encourages extremism when its expedient.
* * *
Karma bites.
Nobody ever believes it will bite them.
Or as I elders put it, “He who would sup with the devil needs a long spoon.”
Or “our elders” as the case might be, if Word didn’t keep helping me.
It is very difficult, nay impossible, to persuade myself that Barack Hussein is not at least extremely sympathetic to Islam as a whole, if not a closet Muslim himself, practicing taqiyya all the way.
He was schooled as a young boy in an Indonesian madrassa, at the age of maximum programability. He bows to the Saudi King.
He does a “deal” with Iran which is an executive action, not a treaty. Does anyone actually know what the material elements of that deal are, other than some insiders like Kerry? BHO will not use the words “Jihad, jihadist, radical Islam” and only recently has used the “terror” word, which is quite misleading; these are Murders By Muslims, planetwide.
The election may well turn on this. I’m for Trump.
The Wahhabi ideology needs to be confronted.
Islam was moderating until Qutb and al Banna stoked the fires of Wahhabism in the 1950s. Since the 1960s Wahhabism has been spread throughout the world with the aid of Saudi oil money.
Look at group pictures of Muslims in the 1950s and 60s. They are mostly dressed in western garb. Then compare to the 1990s and beyond. Islamic dress is the order of the day.
Moderate Muslims, like Zhudi Jasser, base their Muslim faith on three things – prayer, fasting, and charitable works. The Wahhabis add sharia law and conversion or killing of all infidels to the mix. Sharia law and intolerance of infidels makes all Wahhabists enemies of all non-Muslims. Their intention is to kill or convert all 5 billion infidels. The West cannot co-exist with the Wahhabis. That fact needs to be pointed out and the ideology (Wahhabism/political Islam/Salafism/whatever other name that is put on radical Islam) attacked at every opportunity. Only by confronting the ideology openly will we get anywhere.
Just like Eric’s answer to everything is conservative activism. Both are one note songs.
Not quite. You’re missing a lot of things. Is that on purpose or you just don’t pay attention to their histories.
Dismissing things merely because you lack the strength to argue against it, is a flaw in the human condition.
Islam was moderating until Qutb and al Banna stoked the fires of Wahhabism in the 1950s. Since the 1960s Wahhabism has been spread throughout the world with the aid of Saudi oil money.
Look at group pictures of Muslims in the 1950s and 60s.
That conclusion is slightly off, too. Islam was Westernized in the 1950s and such, but only because WWI/WWII allowed the West to put the spike into the Ottoman Empire. That allowed Westerners to put in secular kings like Hussein or Egyptian monarchs, to control things by dividing up the tribes into various factions that fight against each other.
Until the West had advanced enough in military technology to match the Ottomans, Islam still had a Caliphate and a functional system for their imams and holy soldiers. The West dismantled the Ottomans, but Europe as usual didn’t finish the job.
Wahhabism is an attempt by Islamic religion to return to their normal historical cycle. The 1950s where the Western culture reigned supreme in various ME nations was the abnormal state of affairs. They are now returning to their roots, and some of it is pretty zealous as a result, but they are still returning to Islam’s roots. 1400 years of it.
it occurred to me, I had seen this movie before,
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/06/12/philip-haney-orlando-shooting-remarkably-similar-san-bernardino-theres-lot-overlap-two-networks/
Hojjatul Islam Dr. FARROKH SEKALESHFAR؟؟
https://vimeo.com/11517622
Orlando played host to anti-gay Muslim speaker, just weeks ago
http://fusion.net/story/313063/orlando-terror-attack-muslim-lgbt/
After watching the outpourings all over the world i realized that the gay community just painted a humongous target sign on their back by doing so.
when a man shot up a military base… not much happened and the state claimed workplace violence
when another cut the head off a woman at a factory and was shot, not much happened..
but now… if you attack gays you get gatherings all over the world, you get thousands collected together at the stone wall, and you get mass murder targets all lined up and ready to go.
if the point is to make a point, then their outpouring means that if you do this to them, you get world wide attention, mass effects and more.
so… what would the attention whore ISIS militants and wackos going to do now? shoot up a movie theater or base and nothing, or find where the target the west cares about a lot is hanging out?
Ymarsakar Says: Islam was Westernized in the 1950s and such, but only because WWI/WWII allowed the West to put the spike into the Ottoman Empire.
thanks for proving my point as to reading the documents that lay this out that came WAY before what your talking about… and your wrong in that islam was NOT westernized it was Sovietized.
for those that do not want to read the history..
ignore below and above, and keep spouting bs
My apologies. neo cut down the text that gave the origins of this and so once again, she helpss the progagandists even if she doesnt mean to… isnt it nice you can help your opposition by accident while they dont make the same accidents. isnt it someone that said the side that makes the fewest mistakes win the war? thanks for helping our side make mistakes and insuring that people spout likes, fake history and more… as i dont see neo correcting this either… so she makes herself a pawm of the opposition for innocuous reasons and we are to win against the side that does not do that for us?
[another note is you may have noticed that now the west calls turks and indians and such asians the way the soviets used to… ie. the change was and is part of the sovietization of the west, not the westernization of the east]
I just laid out the creation of that sect through its most important four groups through the actions of the soviets in the 1920s, and you completely ignored that history for the fake history that “blames the west”
you can ask neo for it back or you can read the whole book and such from the archives… i am done trying to help… its clear that i am on the wrong side, the losing side who isnt taking what will happen serious enough to build on a foundation of validity, and knowlege… the side that makes the fewest mistakes wins, and if our side is cutting out the education of the truth, then our side is just an adjunct of the oppoositoin, we have already lost…
we have already lost… because we already believe and thing what THEY want us to
[edited for length by n-n]
This crap was planned 100 years ago…
and the idea that capitalists have short memories and would not know what to do, was also in the plan, and you can read the plan as its out in the open…
The strategy by which it should be perpetuated, he maintained, was to transfer revolution beyond the borders of the Tsarist Empire to include the masses of oppressed Muslim peoples of Asia.
here is the history that we forgot, and predates yarmarskar point by many many years and why ibn-saud the creator of the house of saud today, was and maybe is part of the soviet sytem
Soviet diplomacy was conducted accordingly. In the war between Husein and ibn-Saud that began in the spring of 1921, the Saudi forces stood accused in the international community of damaging holy shrines as they captured first Mecca (October 1924) and then Medina (December 1925) from Husein and his son All. Chicherin instructed the Soviet representative in Tehran to undertake a defense of the Wahhabis against the charges. And when ibn-Saud took Jidda and proclaimed himself “King of Hejaz and Sultan of Nejd and adjacent territories” in January 1926, the NKID recognized the Saudi state almost immediately, thus making the USSR the first country to do so. The following June at the Islamic Congress in Mecca, the representative of the Muslims of the USSR cast his ballot for the election of ibn-Saud as chairman of the congress–a position of importance if the Saudis were to be recognized as keepers of the holy places.
yes… i am going back to the days when the soviets helped ibn-saud create the house of saud and take over mecca and medina and cast the jews out of their own holy land and build a temple on their property
For the Saudis, the USSR represented a way out of diplomatic isolation
For the USSR, Hejaz was a place from which to frustrate British predominance in southwest Asia as well as a channel for Soviet intelligence and influence over Islam. “Getting to Mecca is of crucial importance to us,” Chicherin had written in 1924 // And it was so that they could travel to Mecca that the NKID appointed Muslims as counsels-general at Jidda–K. A. Khakimov (1924-26) and N. T. Tiuriakulov (1926-36). Because the hajj , the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, brought together Islamic leaders from Egypt to India, Mecca constituted, in the opinion of the NKID, an ideal listening post and contact point in their relations with diverse political movements among Muslim peoples.
the soviets thought that the HAJJ was a great way to meet everyone and coordinate their actions against the west, and that was in 1920s… of course, we have a more modern set of simplistic lies that negates this history… how many people here even know that the soviets helped and the NKVD and GRU were using the Hajj?
prior to our modern education this was common knowlege as this was the common history
today, you have the peoples history by Zinn, and such, which true to the orders of the first and second commeterm work to always protect the soviets
Narkomindel recommended to the Politburo in February 1926 that “persons of influence in Muslim quarters who could promote our policy there” should be sent on the hajj “under the guise of ordinary pilgrims.” “The best policy,” the recommendation continued, “would be to bring the Muslim masses’ spontaneous drive for the Hajj under our own control” and to provide the pilgrims with direct passage to the Red Sea on Sovtorgflot ships
they have been close to this stuff and have bragged over the past 100 years of games using them against the west, ceaucescaue bragged how he invented the idea of using planes as weapons and bombs (9/11 came decades later)… they trained carlos the jackal, the men who murdered the olympic athletes also had such training and they have always kept camps and things.
even now, it would actually be easy to have hundreds events as in florida happen in a year
we are an open country and there is an open border, etc
so why NOT?
it is not an attack like in war, its an attack like in move the cow into the pen
the point is to hide other things and to get people to ignore them while being focused on the cattle prod
the sheep are being led to the slaughter and they have not the education of the opposition and the knowlege of the bigger picture of whats been going on and not ended for 100 years… or didnt you notive that someone that was in the soviet communist organizations fo the 1920s and commiterm are now in the white house?
i give up
officially
Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakin
The Koran contains over a hundred verses calling for violence against unbelievers. The Koran is the literal word of Allah and must be obeyed by Muslims.
Artfldgr, the strain of Islam typical for Central Asia republics of Soviet Union was not the same as for Arab populated areas: neither Sunni nor Shia, but Sufi. Literalistic interpretation of Koran is not accessible for these tribes, they do not read Arabic and are completely dependent on clergy to interpret it. And Sufi tradition typically prefers allegoric, metaphorical interpretation, rich in symbolism totally derived from non-Islamic cultures as tribal traditions, often openly pagan in nature.
Sergey:
Thanks for the background. All is not black and white it seems.
Muhammad Ali’s extravagant Islamic funeral began with a black imam from Memphis who’d been educated at an Islamic “university” (? in Egypt) reciting verses from the Koran in Arabic. Gobbledegook, but the audience of thousands applauded mightily. And Wm J Clinton eulogized there later.
C-span carried the whole thing, over two hours. I couldn’t watch long. Made my skin crawl.
Cassius Clay was putty in the hands of others.
History repeats itself, but not farcically. The Nazis reminded the Middle East of the way, and now Islam is invading peacefully, but violently when necessary.
Go back to the great days of the Caliphate, when Islam held all of North Africa and Spain, controlled the entire Mediterranean basin, slaughtering as it went. The Alhambra was made possible by mass murder.
Easy for Islam to do again today in the face of cowardice, plus complicity by Obama and Merkel in particular.