Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Quote of the Day
Marc Sageman has strong words for Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and others:
Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer and a consultant on terrorism, said it would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the writers who helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the counterjihad writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.”
“This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”
So, wait, is Sageman saying
So, wait, is Sageman saying that Spencer, Geller, et al are correct about the "ideological infrastructure" concept in regards to Salafi Islam and Al Qaeda-type terrorism? Is he merely drawing an equivalence by noticing that both Salafist and self-styled "Counter-jihadist" rhetoric, "is not cost free"?
The two consistent positions are that 1. Religious or ideological publication is not the same as incitement to violence, and that writers and preachers can not fairly be judged liable for the the occasional cold-blooded, evil nutcase living in his own deluded murderous hero-fantasy, or 2. Writers and Preachers do fairly bear some degree of responsibility and we should judge the dangerousness of their content by the expected impact (Number of followers X Probability of committing a terrorist act X Average damage of each act, and some function of the cost of efforts of prevention).
So, are Spencer, Geller, and the rest wrong about Islam and themselves innocent, or are they partially guilty, but right about what they consider to be the fundamental danger that Salafist "infrastructure" poses to the West? I judge it to be the former, but is Sageman claiming the latter, or is he trying to have it both ways?
Breivik paraphrased John
Breivik paraphrased John Stuart Mill by Tweet before the incident. Should we censor Mill's writings in "Representative Government" (where the reference came from) too?
For a real classy ugly
For a real classy ugly american, check out Bruce Bawer at Pajamas Media, reporting from Oslo :http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-double-tragedy-for-norway/
Or hey, JPost who thinks we should listen to terrorists: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=230788
Thank you Abu M for the tweeting spotlight on these folks.What the fk is wrong with the far right that they are unable to retreat even one step? Check tthe talkbacks on this one for sheer bad extremism.... http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=230762?
Lawrence Auster nails
Lawrence Auster nails Sageman's nonsense:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020011.html
That's a pretty clever move by Sageman: even as he clears the counter-jihad writers of the charge of preaching violence, he makes it seem that Breivik's violence came from their "infrastructure." Moreover, Sageman's analogy between the Salafi branch of Islam as the infrastructure from which al Qaeda emerged and the counterjihad writers as the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged is wholly false, since the infrastructure from which al Qaeda emerged--which by the way is Islam itself, not "Salafi" Islam or any Western-invented concept of "radical" Islam--is an infrastructure that has for the last 1,389 years preached the Allah-sanctified killing and subjugation of infidels, while the infrastructure from which Sageman says Breivik emerged has not preached killing anyone. Sageman's remark is a lie because there are two Anders Breiviks: Breivik the standard-issue counter-jihadist, and Breivik the mass murderer of innocents.
Just yesterday, the Times itself underscored that duality when it quoted Kari Helene Partapuoli, director of the Norwegian Center Against Racism, saying that "The distance between the words spoken and the acts that he carried out is gigantic, because what he did is in a different league of what the debates have to do about." But today, with Sageman's remark, the Times slyly fudges that "gigantic" difference and would have its readers believe that the infrastructure from which emerged Breivik the opponent of the Islamization of Europe is the same infrastructure from which emerged Breivik the mass murderer.
To repeat, the thoughts and influences that led to Breivik's opposition to Islamization have nothing to do with the thoughts and influences that led to his diabolical act of murder of Labor Party young people. There were two entirely different "infrastructures" operating on Breivik's mind, and Sageman makes it appear that there was just one infrastructure.
The falsehood is significant, because it helps fuel the left's agenda of denying the Islam threat, promoting the Islamization of America, and suppressing the left's real enemy, the political and cultural right. The Times article says:
More broadly, the mass killings in Norway, with their echo of the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by an antigovernment militant, have focused new attention around the world on the subculture of anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing activists and renewed a debate over the focus of counterterrorism efforts.
In the United States, critics have asserted that the intense spotlight on the threat from Islamic militants has unfairly vilified Muslim Americans while dangerously playing down the threat of attacks from other domestic radicals. [Emphasis added.] The author of a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report on right-wing extremism withdrawn by the department after criticism from conservatives repeated on Sunday his claim that the department had tilted too heavily toward the threat from Islamic militants.
As I said last evening, given that Breivik, a follower of the counter-jihadist, Islam-critical school of thought, committed mass murder, it would be reasonable and legitimate for authorities to examine the works of Islam critics (including myself) to see if they are promoting violence. Since they clearly are not promoting violence, such examination would not take long. That is very different from the agenda implied in the Times passage quoted above--a permanent re-direction of anti-terrror efforts away from Muslims and toward "domestic radicals," i.e., counter-jihadists and cultural conservatives.
As long as the American left has existed, it has always insisted that the threat to America did not come from actual dangers such as Communism, mass uncontrolled immigration, and multiculturalism, but from the people who warned about those dangers. The current effort to make Islam critics seem a greater danger to America than Islam itself is part and parcel of the left's age-old treasonous agenda
Visitor 10-37 : Sir, you must
Visitor 10-37 : Sir, you must read the perps (I do not name him so as to keep the hits on his name low. He would love being quoted here) manifesto. I have just covered the beginning , and read solid walkthrough. And he is a real serious ideological holy warrior of the counter-jihad. And Fjordman wrote these words, visualising the coming conflict:
“1. The British government continues its suicidal policy of promoting Multiculturalism and cracking down on British “racists”.
2. A precipitating incident by an immigrant or group of immigrants sparks violence, with mobs of angry Britons taking the law into their own hands.
3. The riot police and possibly military troops are summoned by the government to quell the “racist hooligans.”
4. At this point a true civil war has begun, with the Government and civil
authorities, in tacit alliance with the Islamists, fighting native Britons.
5. Elements of the police and the military are reluctant to fight against their own countrymen — with whom they are in broad agreement — and they defect to the “racist” side of the conflict.
6. Next step…? Perhaps a full civil war?”
In 2007, I think. Thats the Zawahiri, Im not even kidding, he is pure evil.
"Never let a crisis go to
"Never let a crisis go to waste."
Demagoguery against demagoguery commenced!
Visitor @ 10-37. Yes, he
Visitor @ 10-37.
Yes, he does seem to nail it, doesn't he?
"The current effort to make Islam critics seem a greater danger to America than Islam itself is part and parcel of the left's age-old treasonous agenda"
"trea·son
[tree-zuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. "
Penalty:
"United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
For some, that may not be an enormous leap.
Sageman jumps to the
Sageman jumps to the conclusion that Breivik was a product of "Counter-jihadist" writers? It would depend if Breivik was a member of the nordic Neo-nazi movement and if Sageman it implying that all "Counter-jihadists" are Neo-nazis.
There's a movie available through Netfflix, Until the Light Takes Us, that gives some insight into a nordic subculture that goes far beyond the "Counter-jihadists" that Sageman is attacking, and I have not yet heard if Breivik was part of that movement or not.
"Thats the Zawahiri, Im not
"Thats the Zawahiri, Im not even kidding, he is pure evil."
Seemed like pretty innocuous speculation to me. Doesn't even call for anyone to do anything.
"What the fk is wrong with
"What the fk is wrong with the far right that they are unable to retreat even one step?"
Why should they? They've been backing up since about 1688 and it hasn't earned them any credit or respite from the Left. All concessions from the Right do is prompt more demands from the Left.
Make no mistake about it,
http://hegemonicobsessions.com/?p=561
Honestly, most of what I read
Honestly, most of what I read about here is stuff I have never heard of before, but the comments here suggest that there are more than a few people who are keenly aware and make sure to keep it that way. It's what makes this country safe. Reverse Cell Phone Lookup | Landscape Lights | Pellet Stoves
yzvnlu
yzvnlu
Add your comment