I'm copying this entire post from Truth & Consequences, just to make sure it gets seen. I'm also adding a new category, "Jihadistan." I first saw this term at the Patriot Post, where it is defined as "a borderless nation of Islamic extremists that constitutes al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups around the world." The category will include items that address the culture of terrorism, as opposed to the war on terror.
Liberals are stupid. Nay, they are tongue chewing, mindless, babbling, dung-for-brains, idiots. Case in point, their favorite mantra: "Iraq had no WMD and there was no relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam."
We now know what we always figured, that Iraq's WMD went to Syria before the war. So the liberals studiously avoid that argument. But when confronted with the most up-to-date evidence about Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda, gleaned from seized Iraqi Intelligence documents, not to mention the mountain of evidence that existed before, the latest liberal mantra goes like this: "How could Osama Bin Laden, a 'devout Muslim,' ally his organization with the likes of Saddam Hussein, a Godless, secular Ba'athist?"
Where have they been? We answered that question years ago.
First, let's examine the logic of the liberals' assertion. It requires us to make the enormous intellectual leap that Osama is the "devout Muslim" they claim and that the goal of Islamic militants is to purge the world of sinners, heretics and non-believers.
If you accept that argument, then you are of necessity discounting the "devoutness" of the millions of Muslims who have lived more or less peacefully with the rest of the world for hundreds of years. You are associating "devoutness" with mass murder, not a logical inference one should encourage.
Furthermore, if the goal is to purge the world of non-believers, why then attack the U.S., one of the largest God-fearing nations in the world? Islam allows for the worship of God by "People of the Book", i.e. Christians and Jews, though admittedly in a subordinate societal position.
If Osama really wanted to purge the world of Godless infidels, why not look in his own back yard? The city of Kandahar, Afghanistan - the very heart of al Qaeda country - is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the Times of London it is the "homosexual capital of south Asia (Kandahar Comes out of the Closet, The Times of London, January 12, 2002)". Homosexuality is so prevalent that "birds fly over the city using only one wing, the other covering their posterior" as the joke goes. Some analysts have claimed as many as fifty percent of Kandahar men have engaged in homosexual relations, and in many cases, this is between grown men and young boys, kept as "halekon."
Why hasn't Osama burned the city to the ground in a fit of moral outrage? In the interest of full disclosure, it must be admitted that the Taliban did enforce anti-sodomy laws in Kandahar when they controlled it. Three violators, for example, were forced to stand against a wall, and were crushed when it was pushed over by a tank. Not what one would call "progressive" exactly, but at least there's a shred of consistency. However, it has been claimed that during this period, Taliban leaders hypocritically kept their own male lovers behind closed doors in the madrases.
For that matter, Yasser Arafat, the paramount Muslim symbol of defiance against the West, and the man whose mission supposedly animates all these radical Islamic groups, was widely reputed to be a homosexual, and many believe he died of AIDS. To add to the confusion, Arafat and his PLO were (are) not Muslim at all. They were (are) communists.
So these grandiose claims to the moral higher ground ring distinctly false.
And there's a lot more evidence that has been staring liberals in the face for the past quarter century. Since the 1970s, Hezbollah, Hamas and all the other "Muslim" terrorist groups operating in the Middle East have relied almost exclusively on secular Ba'athist Syria, and to a lesser extent, Iraq, for aid, training, weapons and safe haven. If they can work with the Ba'athists, why can't Osama?
But if logic and evidence don't convince you, how about Osama's own words? In a statement broadcast by Al Jazeera on February 11, 2003, bin Laden said: "He who fights to raise the word of God will fight for God's sake. Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." So in other words, allying with Saddam's Ba'ath Socialists to fight the U.S. is no problem. Somehow the liberals must have missed this speech.
Finally, there is all the confusion about what school of Islam Osama actually believes in. Most assume he is a Wahhabist. Wahhabism is a strict version of Sunni Islam practiced largely in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, named after its 18th century founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab.
But in fact, Osama is a Qutbist. Sayyed Qutb (pronounced "khatab") was a member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood founded by Hassan al Banna. While it started as a peaceful movement, Qutb preached violence and the Muslim Brotherhood under his leadership was heavily suppressed by the Egyptian government of Abdul Nasser. Qutb himself was executed.
Osama's mentor was Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, who along with Ayman al Zawahiri (today al Qaeda's #2), and Omar Abdel-Rahman (the blind sheik imprisoned for the first WTC attack), was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a follower of Sayyed Qutb. Qutb's Muslim Brotherhood in fact is the ideological font from which has sprung most of the Muslim terrorist organizations in existence today.
Not surprisingly, Osama was implicated in Azzam's 1989 assassination in Pakistan. There apparently was a falling out between Azzam and bin Laden's budding organization over the objectives of Jihad, with bin Laden favoring an all out war with the West (Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Wikipedia) in which he saw himself as the paramount leader.
And there's the rub. Osama sees himself as the supreme leader of a worldwide movement, willing to murder his own allies, other Muslims or anyone else who stands in the way. And as he said, allying with "socialists" against the U.S. is no problem.
This explains how Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who came from the ranks of secular Baluchi terrorists, came to be al Qaeda's number three and the mastermind of 9-11. It explains how, according to the liberals' own Clinton administration, in 1998, Osama's al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq agreed to cooperate "specifically, including weapons development."
And this calls into question his entire justification for being. The secular communist and ba'athist regimes he refers to as "socialists" rule regimes infinitely more degenerate than any Western country, and have completely purged belief in God from public discourse. If Osama were sticking to principle, he would line up next to the largest Christian nation in the world, the U.S. of A., to fight off the true infidels: communism and socialism. But Osama is merely another megalomaniacal racketeer on the order of a Mao, Hitler or Stalin, who has sadly found a vibrant currency in the gullible ranks of Islamic fanatics.
But the liberals still haven't figured this out.
