T

he prophet Muhammed would be tickled piggy-pink with this, as will the millions of subhuman terrorist swine who proudly carry his name, although the rest of the world will recoil in horror:

A Pakistani Federal Minister Monday said that militants were using kidnapped children as suicide bombers across the country.

Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik talking to newsmen here said that the militants were buying innocent children for few hundred thousand rupees and using them to carry out suicide attacks. (Kuwait News via ROP)

By way of contrast, the Son of God taught us:

Then he put a little child among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, “Anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes my Father who sent me.” (Mark 9:36-37)

I’ve read that scripture a whole bunch of times, and I just can’t find anything there about blowing the child up.

Hat-tip: Infidels Are Cool

A

s I understand it, here’s the Obama/Clinton State Dept’s take on how they will win what we used to call the war on terror:  The problem between the U.S. and the jihadists is that we just haven’t been likable enough. We’ will win over Islam if we spend less on the military and more on fish sticks for orphans.

That was the gist of Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith A. McHale’s talk to the Center for a New American Security today.  (I thought the old Bush security was just fine, by the way, since no Americans were killed by jihadists on American soil during his watch, post 9/11.)  Here’s some excerpts:

Whether we are strengthening old alliances, forging new partnerships to meet complex global challenges, engaging with citizens and civil society, or charting new strategies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our national interests depend on effective engagement and innovative public diplomacy. The stakes could not be higher. We must get this right…This is not a propaganda contest — it is a relationship race. And we have got to get back in the game.

Enhanced public diplomacy is a key component of the President’s new strategy in the region…To achieve the President’s aims, we are launching a multi-faceted strategy to provide platforms for local moderate voices, support democratic institutions and civil society, and position the United States as a long-term partner working to create opportunities and enable the people of the region to chart the futures of their own countries.

We are responding to requests from the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to help meet the needs of their people. Secretary Clinton recently announced more than $100 million in humanitarian support for the people of Pakistan. And Ambassador Holbrooke just announced another $200 million. Since 2002, the United States has provided a total of more than $3.4 billion to alleviate suffering and promote economic growth, education, health, security and good governance in Pakistan. [Oh, wait! You mean Bush tried this to the tun of $3.4 billion and they're still trying to kill us? No matter; just apply the Universal Obama Solution - throw lots of money at it.]

Yet we have a credibility gap with many in the region — some have called it a ‘trust deficit.’ So part of our task is reassuring the people that our aim in the region is to support their own aspirations. We need to do a better job of getting the word out about what we are doing to help Pakistan and Afghanistan become more stable and prosperous, both through the local media and by communicating directly with people.”

It is not about getting the word out, or the trust deficit, but it is most definitely about the aspirations of the people of the region.  A significant percentage of them have a deeply imbedded aspiration to bring pain, suffering and death to the Great Satan, and no amount of communication or prosperity is going to change that.  Only rewriting the Q’ran will change that.

Islam has nurtured radicals since the dawn of the religion, through times of great wealth and times of great poverty alike.  Radical Muslims abound in Lebanon, where Democracy still hangs on. And education? Cairo University, where Obama spoke to the Muslim world last week (except for Iran, of course, where the state didn’t broadcast it), has spawned its share of very well educated Islamo-savages.

McHale concluded her comments with a bizarre historical reference:

A few days after I started at the State Department, I moved into George Marshall’s old office. General Marshall saw a world beyond our shores devastated by war and reeling from economic crisis. He knew that our fates and our fortunes were intertwined and that America had to engage with the world to ensure our future. So he launched one of the most far-reaching engagement efforts in history. And today we are still reaping the rewards of that investment in mutual prosperity and security. From Cairo to Kabul, from quiet villages to crowded cities, America is once again reaching out a hand of friendship and seeking new relationships. We know it is the right thing to do and we know, like General Marshall did, that our future depends on it.

Yeah, but back then Europe was a Christian continent. And the enemy was broken, broke and starving - a point we’ll never get to if the administration can’t even admit that we’re fighting terrorists.  There is a role for public diplomacy - what we used to call foreign aid - but alone, it will have no measurable effect on the level of jihadist violence against us.

A

mong the unbounded wealth of things President Bush caught a lot of flak for was his insistence that there is an axis of evil up to nefarious stuff in our world. We haven’t heard the expression much lately, but now it’s back, in a new incarnation … and not out of the mouth of Republicans.

Memri provides this translation of an article by Khaled Imam, the editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Masaa, in which the “axis” word is invoked again. Imam wrote the piece after Egyptian security forces announced the arrest of seven members of a terror cell that allegedly had carried out a February 22, 2009 terror attack in Egypt.

The capture of the terrorist cell associated with the explosions in a square near the Al-Hussein mosque [in Cairo] last February brought to light two new matters of utmost importance. The first is that this cell was discovered through the Internet; the second is that Al-Qaeda had for the first time carried out an operation inside Egypt. …

The fact that Al-Qaeda has entered the fray indisputably confirms the strong connections between this terrorist organization and Iran, Hizbullah, and extremists within the Palestinian resistance. This is a quadruple axis of evil, whose four components were melded together in a single crucible. It’s impossible now to tell which of them is hoisting the banner of international terrorism, which is bandying the slogans of Islam and instigating hate towards Israel, and which is extolling resistance in Lebanon or Gaza. The four have become one.

The target, too, has become one - namely Egypt, its land, its people, its history, its civilization, its economy, [and] its past, present, and future. Egypt - this gate of steadfastness, this bulwark against Iranian ambitions - is unfortunately the main, if not the only, target, and not Israel, as they claim.

This filthy, stinking, motley crew harbors evil intentions against Egypt, which is protected by the Lord, as well as by our outstanding armed and police forces… whose members are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of Egypt’s security. We have the right to be proud of them and of our Egyptian identity, and to defend our national security in every way, both traditional and modern.

Two points. First, I’m very glad, after reading that prose, that we don’t have state-owned media in America. And leaving the more important for last, Imam’s piece shows again that there is indeed a global war on terror that must be fought, whether the current administration realizes it or not.

btaining intelligence from jihadist operatives is not about getting revenge for 9/11, it’s about wanting to protect the next one.  But still, when you listen to this tape, you may well find that the desire for revenge is just as high as the desire to keep the jihadists from our door.

A horror beyond the ability of mere words to capture, isn’t it?  Those the Rahmbamites would prosecute for trying to stop the next attack were all well aware that avoiding this sort of abomination was at the heart of their mission.  That their methods were so comparatively mild is a testament to the honor and goodness of America.

ven though I’ve taken a leave of absence from the Watcher’s Council so I can have more time to work on my geopolitical thriller, I still make it over to Watch of Weasels for the Weekend Weasel post.  Bookmark it if you haven’t already, because the Watcher always does an outstanding job with it.

This week’s post, Weekend Weasel: Sharia Apologists, is a great read, setting up a conversation with Mrs. Weasels and a relative with the quaint name of Muttonhead as a tutorial on the differences between Sharia and Jewish law and the Christian and Catholic provisions that followed.

Having been through many of these conversations with Muttonhead I already knew where the argument was going before she got there. The myth that there is some sort of equivalence between Jewish law or even Catholic ecclesiastical doctrine is a common myth perpetuated by the left; a seed planted by pro-Sharia advocates as a part of the psychological war on all things not Islamic.

The term “useful idiot” was commonly used to refer to soviet sympathizers during the cold war (even though it originated much earlier). Today’s Sharia apologists are an extension of that sentiment although more dangerous in my estimation because the spread of Sharia is a worldwide phenomenon as is liberalism through ignorance.

The post has some terrific quotes on the subject, and when you see the differences laid out, it gives you a chill.  The conflict between Sharia and Judeo-Christian based law is stark, cold and frightening, and the Sharia apologists are a subtext in what reads like a cosmological thriller of good vs. evil on a grand scale. Particularly salient are the quotes by David Yerushalmi, General Counsel to Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, who concludes:

Because Jihad necessarily advocates violence and the destruction of our representative, constitution-based government, the advocacy of Jihad by a Shariah authority presents a real and present danger. This is sedition when advocated from within our borders; an act of war when directed at us from foreign soil.

Extremist? Not necessarily - and definitely the safer, more rational position for Americans to take.

T

hat’s right, boys and girls, an AK47 made entirely of bacon, which, as you know, is made entirely of pigs.  And to jihadists it’s tough and know which is worse: pigs or infidels.  So what better way could there be to send a jihadist to an eternity without God or virgins?

Read more about the BA-K-47 at Geekologie.

And for the first time in the history of C-SM, I’ve put “humor” and “jihad” tags together!

B

aituallah Mehsud, a Taliban leader in Pakistan who’s holding the rapt attention of these reporters, would have us believe that yesterday’s killings in Binghamton were the work of his gang of tribal thugs, in retaliation for drone missile attacks on Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s tribal border region.

“I accept responsibility. They were my men. I gave them orders in reaction to U.S. drone attacks,” Mehsud told Reuters, which is choosing not to discuss where or how they tracked this self-described mass murdering terrorist down.

Personally, I think it’s nothing more than bravado, since the killer was apparently Vietnamese - where the Muslim population is one-tenth of one percent - and apparently was alone, a “man” not “men.”  (Atlas Shrugs, who live-blogged the massacre, says that for a while there was speculation of two gunmen, however.)

Whether this was a Taliban attack or not really isn’t the significant matter here; what’s significant is that this is exactly the sort of attack they would like to mount on US soil. We know this because it was the sort of attack they carry out in places crowded with innocents wherever and whenever they can.  And that leads to a larger question:  Are we as protected today from these sorts of attacks as we were when Bush was in office?

Now, because we have elected a president more concerned with popularity and political correctness than with effectively dispatching terrorists to the horrors that await them after death, we are no longer fighting terrorists and are no longer engaged in a global war on terror. It’s all been slathered in gobblydegook, as we undertake operations against man-caused disaster causers.

But more significantly, we have a president who, even as he (thankfully) keeps up the drone attacks, cannot address terrorism, let alone stare down the terrorists and give them reason to fear America.  Listen to this question from the post-G20 press conference, when an Indian correspondent he selected so he’s ”not showing gender bias” asks him what he and India’s prime minister discussed about how to deal with the terror that comes out of Pakistan.  After gaffing through a gag - hardly the appropriate response to such a question - he gets to his answer:

Did you catch the answer?  Or did you miss it in the endless blather about carbon footprints and poverty?  Here it is, in its entirety:

“We did discuss, uh, the issue of terrorism. uh, and, uh, we discussed it not simply in terms of terrorism eminating from Pakistan although,uh, we are very concerned about extremists and terrorists [not "man-caused disaster causers?"] who have made camp in, uh, the border regions, uh, of Pakistan as well as  those in Afghanistan.

“But we spoke about it more broadly, in terms of how we can coordinate effectively on, uh, issues of counterterrorism ….”

And then  he was off on a quick jaunt through poverty and into a long, rambling and boring talk about global warming, which included a statement that if the Chinese and Indians had the per-capita carbon footprints of Americans, “We all would have melted by now.”  It’s not funny, this flip damning of America out of the mouth of our president.

So we got six words on terrorism - “coordinate effectively on issues of counterterrorism” - and several minutes on the terror posed by global warming, proof positive that the man is more concerned about what might happen over the next century or thousand years -a concern hundreds of scientists and nearly half the population now disagree with - than he is about Baituallah Mehsud and his jihadist compatriots, who would kill us tomorrow if they had the wherewithall.  Bush kept the Talibums and al-Queerdas from getting that wherewithall - but Obama’s priorities, obviously, are elsewhere.

So while Binghamton was probably nothing more than a disgruntled Vietnamese going tragically haywire, we have less reason than ever to discount the possibility that Mehsud or Mohammed or Abdul might not pull something like this off here soon. 

ere’s a headline you don’t see every day:

 Gunmen shoot Sri Lanka cricketers

But it’s not really surprising, given that the cricketers were on their way to Gaddafi Stadium.  In Pakistan.  Two plus two equals Islamist terrorists bent on jihad, and indeed the attack this morning on the Sri Lankan team, which was touring Pakistan after India’s team pulled out for security reasons, had the look and feel of the Mumbai attacks.  BBC:

Pakistani officials said about 12 gunmen were involved and grenades and rocket launchers have been recovered.

Officials said the incident bore similarities to deadly attacks in Mumbai in India last November.

Reports suggest 10 to 12 gunmen ambushed the team coach and its accompanying police detail on the Liberty Square roundabout in the heart of Lahore, as the convoy was on the way to the Gaddafi stadium for a Test match.

No terrorists were apprehended.  Five Pakistani police officers and the bus driver - who the cricketers described as heroic, saving their lives by continuing to drive under the hail of lethal bullets - were killed.  Ten Sri Lankan team members and coaches were injured, two seriously enough to be hospitalized.

One Pakistani official sought to shift blame away from Islamist jihadists, claiming without evidence that India was behind the attacks, in retaliation for the Mumbai attacks.  No word on why the Indians would have been so stupid as to kill Sri Lankan cricketers instead of Pakistani jihadists.

Inone of the greater understatements of the jihadist war against civilization, International Cricket Council president David Morgan said it would be “very difficult for international cricket to be hosted in Pakistan for quite some time to come.”  Indeed, it will be very difficult for the international community to consider Pakistan to be a country in control of itself for some time to come.

I

n a rare fit of clarity, Britain banned Omar Bakri from returning to Britain in 2005, after he fled the country following the 7/7 subway attacks that ended the lives of 52 British citizens. It seemed OK with the Brits that Bakri praised Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks, but when he blamed the the British government and the British people for 7/7, the bugger’s welcome mat was pulled.

Now befouling Lebanon with his hateful existence, Bakri hasn’t given up on Britain.  From the Telegraph:

Omar Bakri, the radical cleric banned from Britain, has addressed a conference at a primary school in London in which he called for the country to become an Islamic state.

Dozens of Muslims attended the rally at Sudbury Primary School in Harrow, north London, to hear Bakri preach for 40 minutes over the telephone from his exiled home in Lebanon. …

Bakri told his followers: “The existence of the Islamic state is a necessity for justice to be established, a necessity for the people in order to keep away from personal desire and greed.

“I believe the way forward is Islam. It is time to go back to basics. I believe Islam is the future.”

Now perhaps its time for Britain to boot the organizer of this little fete out as well.  that would be Anjem Choudary, Bakri’s Britain-resident aide, who was identified by the Telegraph as the “former” head of the extremist group Al Muhajiroun.  IslamWatch tells us to watch out for words like “former” …

Al-Muhajiroun was officially disbanded in October 2004, but it has continued under other names. Right from its start, the group had intentions to be “international”. In this, it has succeeded. It established a foothold in the United States, and had a base in Pakistan. Even though the parent group has been abolished, its members continue to promote its message of jihad both in Britain and North America.

… and goes on to describe the groups’ activities including one member who trained to be a 9/11 hijacker, another who worked to set up a “terror training camp” in Washington, another admitted providing night-vision goggles, waterproof clothing and money to a senior Al Qaeda official who was based in South Waziristan, another was arrested following the finding of more than 1,300 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in London, and on, and on.

It’s not enough to kick them out of your country.  It’s certainly a bad idea to set them free from Guantanamo.  Their hatred is deep and unabated.  Only death silences them.

Hat-tip:  Weasel Zippers

A

s the wildfire death toll in Australia nears 200, a frightening new question must be asked:  Are the fires an act of jihad?  If no, then an even more frightening question must follow: Why not?

Earlier this year, US intelligence channels identified postings by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network that was urging members of the Religion of Peace in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to start forest fires.  The life-threatening arson was fine with Allah, they said, because “scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels’ forests when they do the same to our lands.”  From Australia’s The Age:

The posting - which instructs jihadis to remember “forest jihad” in summer months - says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that “this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time”.

“Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires,” the website says. “You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia.”

With all the usual disclaimers, what a sick excuse for a religion! Who, other than those that haven’t advanced beyond the 7th Century, still believes that fear is an effective motivator for spiritual matters?  Do they think Australians - or Californians - would fall on our knees and submit to a god who glorifies such reprehensible, sub-human behavior?

The paper quotes Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong’s Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, saying “forest fire jihad” is evidence of desperation by jihadists, since it is an inglorious form of indirect jihad, resorted to only because efforts for grander actions are difficult to pull off in our post-9/11, post-Bali, post-Madrid, post-London world.

I’m not resting easy.  If it was an Islamist terror action, two hundred dead is two hundred dead, whether they died by glorious or inglorious jihad.  And you know SoCal will be dry next summer.

Hat-tip: Jim