How to satisfy the terrorists

What will it take to satisfy the terrorists? It's a valid question. If they want to keep attacking us here on American soil and around the world, one must ask the question, "What is it the terrorists want to accomplish?" Or in simple terms, what is their endgame?

Al Qaeda and some Islamic extremist groups have stated that their ultimate goal is to restore a caliphate encompassing all former and current Muslim lands. The totalitarian state would impose a strict interpretation of Islamic law, curbing freedom of speech and religion, and women’s and minority rights. Central Command (pdf warning)

It's very interesting that United States Central Command would use the word 'caliphate'. It seems that some in the U.S. don't want President George W. Bush to use that word. (Psssst.... It's politically incorrect, like using Islamic facism, and CAIR doesn't like it. Mum's the word.)

In a Newsweek article, "Caliwho?" written by Lisa Miller And Matthew Philips, they ask 'why President Bush has raised the issue of an Islamic Caliphate' and called it a "fifty-cent word". These two writers obviously do not GET the true definition of caliphate.

They seemed to be appalled by the fact that the President “dared” to mention the “word” Caliphate and spoke of the Jihadists’ attempt to “extend the Caliphate, establish the Caliphate and spread the Caliphate.” Miller and Philips, writing with the certitude of Middle East Studies expertise, reminded their readers, oddly, that “many people (in the US) live long without using the word Caliphate” suggesting the uselessness of the President’s vocabulary. Precisely this absence of understanding of the term Caliphate was the problem in the 1990s. --Dr. Walid Phares at FamilySecurity Matters

Dr. Phares compares the handling of the word 'caliphate' today to the handling of the word 'Reich' during WWII. "If in 1941, one would not know what “Reich” meant in the Nazi rhetoric, one would not be blaming those who would be helping others to understand it, but rather those who concealed the meaning from others in the years prior to the rise of Hitler."

The term “Caliphate”, with all its linguistic and doctrinal derivatives in today’s Salafi terminology, is as charged and politicized as the “Third Reich” was to the National-Socialists during WWII. The “Caliphate” epitomizes all that the Jihadists are preparing for, working towards, and killing for. This word IS at the center of the War with Terrorism – it is not an obscure academic word as Miller and Philips would have us believe. The bringing back of the “Caliphate” is the chief reason why Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, Zarqawi, and Adam Gadahn have declared and waged a war against the people of the United States. Given its centrality to the Jihadist activities, the term must be treated seriously. --Dr. Walid Phares

Just who did Miller and Phillips consult when trying to define and understand the term 'caliphate'? None other than Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is a lobby for the Islamists (terrorists) here in the United States, so they obviously were against the use of the word caliphate just like they were against the use of the term Islamic facism. Of course Mr. Ahmed never denied that a caliphate was the desire of Islam. In fact, CAIR leaders have predicted that the United Sates of America would be an Islamic nation in the near future (see Anti-CAIR).

If "tens of thousands of Jihadists are pledging to the Caliphate before they commit to suicide bombings, beheadings and wreaking havoc in civil societies around the world", shouldn't Americans be allowed to use the word 'caliphate' and to understand just what it means?

For Americans the question is not WHO the caliph, or leader of Islam's empire, will be. Nor is the question WHERE that territory will be. The question should be WHAT exactly does being part of the Islamic caliphate mean? In very simple terms, it means being ruled by Islam, which would remove all our freedoms, our way of life, and even our own religion. Shouldn't people be warned about this?

If the American people are not allowed to understand the goal of the terrorists, how can we expect to rally them behind the war effort? We're not fighting for the hearts and minds of the Muslims, it is the hearts and minds of AMERICANS that is at stake. Daniel Pipes article, "West must realize 'battlefield of the media' is what matters" really is timely.

Soldiers, sailors and airmen once determined the outcome of warfare, but no longer. Today, television producers, columnists, preachers and politicians have the pivotal role in deciding how well the West fights. This shift has deep implications.

In a conventional conflict like World War II, fighting had two premises so basic, they went nearly unnoticed. The first: Conventional armed forces engage in an all-out fight for victory. [snip] Second assumption: Each side's population loyally backs its national leadership.

It's the battle of the pundits, 'journalists', and experts. Some of them WANT to pacify the enemy. They just don't understand what giving the terrorists what they want would mean for freedom-loving people like Americans. Personally I am NOT on the side of writers like Miller and Phillips. Place me solidly with Daniel Pipes, Dr. Walid Phares, and their peers. I say, if the word fits ... use it.

Related News Articles:
Break-Up of Iraq Threatens Mideast Stability Mahmudiyah Bombing Kills, wounds Dozens
Mecca meeting seeks end to Iraq sectarian violence
Dubai Tours Offer Positive View of Islam
Mubarak: Muslims Partly to Blame for Image
Horn of Africa, Next Terror Front

Gulf Arab states are giving up on America

Related Blog Articles:
Good News From Iraq Part #1, Wake Up America
As always, The Lone Voice has Good News from Iraq (as NOT reported by the BBC)

Comments

[xoggoth]

I suppose Islam could reform, I believe the Kirk in Scotland in the early 18th century went from burning heretics and Jews to almost complete tolerance in a matter of decades.

The problem with that analogy is that the past cruelties of the Christian church look like abberations when compared to the Christian message, but with Islam there seems to be no such conflict.

[James Biga]

Ditto TH

[Thomas Hamilton]

Too bad we are not independent of their damned oil, otherwise they could have the whole sandheap we call the middle east, but then again there's Israel. They won't rest until Israel is a puff of smoke.

I see no alternative but to eliminate the Islamic bastards, YES EACH AND EVERY ONE, from the planet.

And why are we dependent on their oil? It's our own damned fault!