The Enemy Within

The Procession of the Trojan Horse in Troy ca.1773 by Giovanni Tiepolo at The National Gallery, London

"Ever since the attack on New York on 11 September 2001, European governments have struggled to understand the phenomenon of the home-grown terrorist - the enemy within - in hopes of averting further attacks.

Some have middle-class backgrounds while others are drifters from broken homes. But most are known to have traveled to the countries known as the " centers of terror".

Western governments have been forced to recognize that the Iraq war and the televised brutal treatment of Muslims has radicalized an entire generation.
[...]
A Belgian has become the latest European, and the first woman, to join the lengthening list of bombers.
Murielle Degauque was, by all accounts, a normal child. A typical girl next door, you might say. True, as a teenager growing up in southern Belgium, she dabbled in drugs and preferred boys to books. But there was nothing to indicate that she would become the first Western woman to launch a suicide bomb attack in the name of jihad when she blew herself up in Iraq last month."

The WaPo also has the story: "This action shows how international terrorism tries to set up networks in Western European nations, recruit for terror attacks in conflict areas and look for funds to finance terrorism," said Belgium's prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt."

As does Doug @ Below The Beltway: "If nothing else, this may serve as a wake up call for Belgium and the rest of Europe. The enemy is among them, its only a matter of time before it acts."

Mark Noonan @ Blogs for Bush: "This is why we're trying to drain the swamp of terrorism at the source - because there is just too much risk to ourselves here at home if we don't. We must, and I believe we will, clean up our own society - rediscover moral truth and start instructing our young in it, but that will not happen over night and meanwhile we've got millions of pieces of tinder here at home which can go right up in flames if we don't take away the matches...in this case, Islamo-fascists who prey upon hopeless youths from affluent backgrounds who want a mission in life. Do not undersestimate the power of an ideal, no matter how twisted...Germans fought to the bitter end for Hitler, communist rank-and-file willingly sacrificed themselves for Stalin's greater glory. This battle in Iraq, the central front in the War on Terrorism, is as much a battle for our own lives and future as it is for the lives and future of the Iraqis. Absolutely everything is at stake in this war - we either win it, or be destroyed."

"The push for a religious hatred law in England is an attempt to advance the legal privilege that Muslims claim for Islam. True, Muslim leaders are happy that the same protection should be extended to other religions in this country. But to a modern liberal society which claims the freedom to attack all beliefs, this should be no comfort. It says a good deal about the quality of churchmen and politicians in Britain that the most prominent opponent of the Bill is Mr Bean. The Archbishop of Canterbury is more or less invisible. The Government is on the side of repression.

Because it is usually called Boxing Day, people forget that December 26 is the feast of St Stephen, the first martyr. Somewhere in the Muslim world on that day, there will be more Christians martyred, as there are every day of the year. Muslims are not martyred in Britain. For once, the mote is in our own eye, and the beam in somebody else's - or will it soon be illegal to say that?"

Tablighi Jamaat, the Islamic missionary group, has announced plans to build a mosque next door to the new Olympic stadium. The London Markaz will be the biggest house of worship in the United Kingdom: it will hold 70,000 people - only 10,000 fewer than the Olympic stadium, and 67,000 more than the largest Christian facility (Liverpool's Anglican cathedral). Tablighi Jamaat plans to raise the necessary £100 million through donations from Britain and "abroad".

Mark Steyn, who told us "Wake Up Europe you have a war on Your Hands", something he has been gloomily predicting since 9/11, is now commenting on the monstrosity of a Mosque planned for London:

"There's one image of the Second World War that sums it up: in London, the morning after a night of Luftwaffe bombing, Churchill would walk through the ruins; in Berlin, Hitler never visited bombed-out areas and, just in case the driver should take a wrong turn, he drove through the streets with his car windows curtained.

If you can't bear to pull open the curtains, chances are you're going to lose. When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality. What does the European political class really know of today's challenges? We mock the Islamists for wanting to turn the clock back to the eighth century. But, if it's a choice between eighth-century reality or 21st-century fantasy, it's not such an easy call.

By the time that Olympic mega-mosque is open for business, you'll be surprised how well it fits in."

What a chilling thought. As Professor of Islamic Medieval History from Israel tells me today:

"There is no question that Islamic triumphalism is the greatest danger to civilization in the world today, and I can well understand your worries and fear, which are, alas! all too prescient. Unfortunately, it would take a radical change in European outlook and mentality to keep Europe from falling within the next 50 years or so…"

More on the articles written by the Professor this weekend. From what I have seen thus far this will be powerful, I am in the process of preparing it for publication tomorrow. Don't miss it. The Professor is of course for those of you who read this comment thread 'The Guest', and had this to say in that particular thread when asked directly by me about this very issue:

"I think someone is going to have to finally topple the Mullah's regime, and quickly; I see no greater threat to the world right now. Iranian long-range missiles can already reach Europe, and after they have obtained nuclear weapons and destroyed Israel, as President Ahmedinejad so kindly informed us a few weeks ago that he plans to do, he will then turn his attention, for instance, toward United States troops in the Muslim world: the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan, Iraq...

A nuclear Iran would be a nightmare for the world. They have openly declared that they are prepared to use those weapons when they get them, and that they also don't mind sacrificing a few million "martyrs" of their own population along the way to attaining their goals. Presumably, Europe and the US WOULD mind losing a few million civilian inhabitants- not to mention the cities they inhabit- so Iran possesses a distinct tactical advantage.

As for the historical aspects of Islamic expansionism: Let's just say that building an Empire over most of the known world, from the Atlantic to India, including swallowing up the entire Sassanian Empire and most of the Eastern Roman Empire and 3 of the 5 Christian Patriarchates (including the ancient Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, incidentally) within 70 years of Muhammad's death, wasn't accomplished by a "peaceful" Jihad.

Classical Islamic theory recognizes "Dar al-Islam" (the "Abode of Islam") and "Dar al-Harb" (the "Abode of War"). The latter is destined, eventually, to be absorbed into the former, so that God's will can rule over all the earth. Islam is in this, as it claims to be in so many other aspects, the "Middle Path"; whereas Judaism is territorial but not universal (only the Land of Israel needs to be a Jewish polity), and Christianity is universal but not territorial ("my Kingdom is not of this world"), Islam is both universal AND territorial.

Until the West begins to pay attention to what Muslims are saying in Arabic, Persian and Urdu, rather than what their apologists spout forth for foreign consumption, we will continue to be in the situation of England under Chamberlain. Let us hope that our political leadership wakes up before it is too late..."

Meanwhile, back at home it is comforting to know that although not older, we may be a little wiser than Europe, and our leader is indeed paying attention. From The President's speech a couple of days ago at The U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland:

"Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder -- and invite new attacks on America. To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief".

The Political Teen has the video. John Hinderaker @ Powerline avers that in a series of speeches extending over a period of years, President Bush has articulated his policy vision more consistently and more eloquently than any President since Lincoln. According to John, most of The President's speeches have been mostly ignored by the MSM, therefore the public have been kept in the dark regarding his plans on the war  on terror.

And my friend @ The Right Nation as always has the perfect round up on who has been following the story:

Hugh Hewitt, The Corner (NRO), QandO Blog (2), Hyscience, Pajamas Media, PoliPundit, GOP Bloggers, Stop the ACLU, bRight&Early, Media Lies, Little Green Footballs, Balloon Juice, The Glittering Eye, California Yankee, One Hand Clapping, Gay Patriot, The Uncooperative Blogger, Big Lizards, Bill Hobbs, RNC04 Blog, Keith D. Milby, Slant Point, PeakTalk, Donkey Stomp, Roger L. Simon, David Corn.

To end on a humourous note from Jay @ Wizbang, about crazy John 'Hindsight' Kerry, who claims he lost the 2004 Election due to events that took place in 2001. So he lost the race more than three years before the election was held...Yeah right.

Comments

[Joseph Marshall]

I'm sorry, Jeff, I wrote too quickly, too harshly, and too thoughtlessly. I have thought the matter through more clearly in making a post over at The Anchoress' on the same issue.

The protest does have some point, though I think it is directed to an organization that is unlikely to be influenced by it, so it is but a gesture to relieve the feelings.

I also do not believe the ACLU are bigots, and I do think most, if not all, of the Season's Greetings equivocations are essentially self-censorship in response to "regulation by raised eyebrow", particularly those involving private property such as discount stores. This is perfectly amenable to the sort of public pressure the Christmas cards represent, and I think Nervous Nelly merchants would be a far better target for them.

An examination of what the ACLU actually does in the area of religion will show anyone that they defend both the non-establishment clause and the free expression clause. They may not interpret these the same way you do but they are hardly an "enemy within" and neither am I.

[jeff stiles]

Thanks for the info, Jess. I've forwarded the address to those on my email list.

And yes, Joseph, I suppose this may be a way of peacefully showing the bigots in the ACLU the huge support Christmas has in this country. Thanks for the reminder of why I do what I do! :)

[Joseph Marshall]

I suppose that the emotions behind the Christmas card campaign are part of the "true meaning of Christmas".

[jess1dering]

ACLU
"Wishing You Merry Christmas"
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004 And my precious friends, here is the address , in case you'd like to send your Christmas greeting to another 'enemy within'. Thought you might like to join the campaign.

[jess1dering]

And here we have the redesigned (ahem) Pa. memorial. They are a most stubborn and boldly unresponsive bunch, aren't they? http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2005/11/redesigned-flight-93-memorial-still_30.html

[spiritofecstasy]

Jeff Stiles,

That is an important perspective which counters the high speed and strangely part-isan spin machine of MSMedia and political institutions.

Approximate casualty figures:

US CIVIL WAR: 600,000

(Not sure?)
WWI: 100,000??? I know one theory has it that influenza killed so many people worldwide that there literally weren't enough people to fight.

VIETNAM: 58,000

IRAQ: 2,000+

-0-

Sig, Carl, Al,

The highly promoted rise of Islamics in Europe is peculiar. The States, such as France, are secular but they allow these "blatantly" extremist Muslim immigrants to scream religion religion religion under the guise of some egalitarian civil liberties. What comes first? Civil Liberties as Egalitarianism or Islam as Totalitarianism?

The mosques just bristle with one single psychological mechanism. The same rhetoric from Iran, to Paris, to Saudi Arabia, to the Netherlands, to VA USA, to everywhere.

Who Knew?

[Joseph Marshall]

Well, let's take 'em in order.

If the answer is anything but a resounding rejection of such doctrine, made publicly and unhesitatingly, deportation to their blessed homeland as currently requested by the UK government seems a step in the right direction as a solution.

There are a lot of countries in Europe and your bandwidth is not infinite, so I'll confine myself to two examples. This is what the Belgian Muslim advocacy group the Arab European League has to say:

we believe in a multicultural society as a social and political model where different cultures coexist with equal rights under the law....We do not want to assimilate and we do not want to be stuck somewhere in the middle. We want to foster our own identity and culture while being law abiding and worthy citizens of the countries where we live.

Would we ask anything more of our immigrants here?

And here is what the British publication, The Muslim Student Survey, Voice of Muslim Students had to say:

The overwhelming majority of Muslim students unequivocally condemn the [July 7th] London attacks, with only 4% failing to do so. On suspecting someone is going to carry out a terrorist attack, almost three-quarters of our respondents said they would immediately go to the police, and of the remainder, 48% said they would do so after trying to first talk the person out of it. 9% of those who would not inform the police, felt they could not go to the police because they couldn't trust them or they feared them.

Is anybody listening?

You seem to be up to challenges, Alexandra, so I have one for you. Take two or three days, scroll down through this site--http://fatemathoughts.blogspot.com/, read a good selection of the posts, and put up a report here of what you find there.

Moreover, lets look at some more intractable facts. There are 44 million Muslims in Europe as a whole, 1 million in Spain, 1.5 million in the UK, just less than 1 million in Italy, just less than 1 million in the Netherlands, 350 thousand in Belgium, 3 million in Germany, and 4.5 million in France [Wikipedia].

The general drift of your solution is not without precedent in European history. Stalin's re-arrangement of Eastern European populations after World War II comes immediately to mind. But the precedents are not comfortable ones and certainly following them to any length would be a tremendous inconvenience.

But I want to make perfectly clear that this is the logical extention of much of the overheated rhetoric in the posts you have cited.

Now let's examine the Professor's solution.

I think someone is going to have to finally topple the Mullah's regime, and quickly; I see no greater threat to the world right now. Iranian long-range missiles can already reach Europe

With what army? A good one-third of our regular combat troops are currently committed abroad and, since we will be "staying the course", they are not really available.

Another third would take an absolute emergency minimum of four months to be ready to go back [normally this takes 12 months].

The last third could be deployed. This would string out between 300,000 and 500,000 of our troops, or two thirds of our combat units, across an area stretching from the Syrian border to the Pakistani border! A mere glance at the map will show you how untenable this is. Particularly since 150,000 of our troops have so little control of Iraq.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm

Moreover, there would be no fighting reseves available for four months, and all tours of duty would have to be frozen for years.

I think the good Professor should spend a little less time reading Classical Islamic Theory, and a little more time studying the history of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. He would find it very illuminating.

Let's then consider a comparison with the two of our other wars. Our War On Terror began in November 2001. We have just passed November of 2005. Hostilities in the Civil War began in April 1861. By April of 1865 the Confederacy had surrendered. In World War II our state of war began in December of 1941. By December of 1941 both Germany and Japan had surrendered.

We have hardly gotten this far with our Muslim enemies around the world.

Finally, in both of those wars over four years there was an immense mobilization of America for total war. Moreover, when tactics failed to work, they were changed, sometimes quite drasticly. In both cases the war being fought at the end would not have been even recognizable to the soliders who marched out in the beginning.

Four years have passed and the President proposes to neither change the tactics nor make any more than a minimum commitment to the War On Terror, despite our relative lack of success defeating our primary enemies.

As you can see, Jeff, I really haven't forgotten.

[spiritofecstasy]

If you are an idealist then this will appear cynical but that is not the motive in this comment. Think of this as a Trojan Horse with a label on the side; Parts made in Arabia, Assembled in Russia, Debt financed partially by China, consumer info dial; 1-800=BLAME-THE-JEWS-IN-ISRAEL.

All nations pursue their own interests. It is realpolitik in real time, all the time. The pattern/s are behind the fashion of all history.

The Arab Nations have supplied known reserve hydrocarbons for most of the last century and continue to do such. They have accumulated wealth which is power and made alliances which is power. One assumes they have a reason for being the birthplace of global guerilla warfare also known as terror-ism. A reason that would be opposed to consolidating their power corporately within a deregulated Democracy. Your guess as to why, is as good as mine.

It is important to note that mineral-rich petroleum represents: crop fertilizers used worldwide, pharmaceuticals, vitamins, plastics, paint and coatings, fuels -of course- including much of the heating represented by all those chimneys. The demand is enormous. I saw an intel officier on cable tv and he said alqaeda will never take Saudi Arabia uncontested or otherwise because the oil is a "World Resource" meaning all the power in the World would stop them. Oil is power.

Maybe, just maybe that is why French leaders blatantly shy away from the obvious with such arrogance. And why there are some thousand Islamic schools in the US and thirty some offices of CAIR in North America with it's own blatant ties to guerilla warfare terrorism. And maybe the Israeli Democracy threatens Middle East Monarchies. Maybe it is just used as an excuse to maintain the profitable class structure of monarchies/theocracies by blaming all ills on an outside minority. Oil is power, far reaching. Maybe this is why jr.marxist Leftists keep appearing out of the cool blue with bizarre pro-Arab-pro-Islamic petitions, organizations and statements.

If you have a bag marbles and they are all blue but the guy selling them says; they are assorted colors, READ the label. I'd say he wants to sell cool blue marbles at a higher profit than the marbles are worth.

The responsibility, or blame, or amoral accomplishment seems to be assorted colors though.

[jeff stiles]

Joseph said: "Three years and the process is still "ongoing"!"

It's truly amazing all that HAS been accomplished in those years!

Remember how long it took to fight nearly every other war in our nation's history?

Remember how many of our nation's young men were lost in our own battle for independence, or during the so-called Civil War?

Remember how many years it took to get our own Constitution figured out?

How soon we forget . . .

[Alexandra]

Joseph,

So you want Europe to wake up and do what? Forbid Muslims to worship? Ban the construction of Mosques? Force convert them to Christianity? Force convert them to secularism?

Sweeping generalization of course, but to stay in that 'spirit', I say to you, it depends on each and everY Muslim's stance on whether or not in their understanding Islam condones and justifies violence and oppression in order to expand its teachings and territories. If the answer is anything but a resounding rejection of such doctrine, made publicly and unhesitatingly, deportation to their blessed homeland as currently requested by the UK government seems a step in the right direction as a solution.

Perhaps The Professor could address the question. [...] So if it's so terrible, what do we do about it?

The Professor did in fact answer exactly your question in another thread:

"...I think someone is going to have to finally topple the Mullah's regime, and quickly; I see no greater threat to the world right now. Iranian long-range missiles can already reach Europe, and after they have obtained nuclear weapons and destroyed Israel, as President Ahmedinejad so kindly informed us a few weeks ago that he plans to do, he will then turn his attention, for instance, toward United States troops in the Muslim world: the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan, Iraq...
A nuclear Iran would be a nightmare for the world. They have openly declared that they are prepared to use those weapons when they get them, and that they also don't mind sacrificing a few million "martyrs" of their own population along the way to attaining their goals. Presumably, Europe and the US WOULD mind losing a few million civilian inhabitants- not to mention the cities they inhabit- so Iran possesses a distinct tactical advantage.
As for the historical aspects of Islamic expansionism: Let's just say that building an Empire over most of the known world, from the Atlantic to India, including swallowing up the entire Sassanian Empire and most of the Eastern Roman Empire and 3 of the 5 Christian Patriarchates (including the ancient Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, incidentally) within 70 years of Muhammad's death, wasn't accomplished by a "peaceful" Jihad.
Classical Islamic theory recognizes "Dar al-Islam" (the "Abode of Islam") and "Dar al-Harb" (the "Abode of War"). The latter is destined, eventually, to be absorbed into the former, so that God's will can rule over all the earth. Islam is in this, as it claims to be in so many other aspects, the "Middle Path"; whereas Judaism is territorial but not universal (only the Land of Israel needs to be a Jewish polity), and Christianity is universal but not territorial ("my Kingdom is not of this world"), Islam is both universal AND territorial.
Until the West begins to pay attention to what Muslims are saying in Arabic, Persian and Urdu, rather than what their apologists spout forth for foreign consumption, we will continue to be in the situation of England under Chamberlain. Let us hope that our political leadership wakes up before it is too late..." [end quote]

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

The fact is, Europe abandoned religion a long time ago. As a consequence, Europeans are uniquely ill equipped to deal with Islam- or for that matter, any other religious issues.

You cannot be on a dive team if you can't swim, no matter how much you believe your dive form is flawless and graceful.

Europeans are in effect, talking about God and religion from the bleachers. They are not players, don't know the rules or even the nuances of the game.

All the while, the Euro Muslims are leading them on, applauding them as equals- as long as they tow the Islamic line.

[Joseph Marshall]

So you want Europe to wake up and do what? Forbid Muslims to worship? Ban the construction of Mosques? Force convert them to Christianity? Force convert them to secularism? Perhaps The Professor could address the question.

I really do wonder where my good friends put the part of themselves that balances their checkbooks, gets the oil changed in their auto, or buys a new winter coat when they discuss this issue.

And it is isn't just the people on blogs. This time the President's recycled rhetoric finally comes with something committed to writing: a highly useful Executive Summary of his "victory plan".

The summary describes the sum total of our success in Iraq as follows:

Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of Iraq's neglected infrastructure, and the ongoing training and equipping of Iraq's security forces.

Absolutely nothing in this list is in any way a "security" success. Not one thing. On that score, as of today, we are starting from square one. Three years and the process is still "ongoing"!

The absolute best you can say is that these "successes" might someday lead to a security success. No tangible ground in the area of Iraqi security has been gained by what we have been doing. None.

This blunt and intractible fact simply cannot be argued away. And the attempt by the Executive Summary to argue it away is utterly silly.

The plan proposes "progress standards" for security such as the number of "intelligence tips" obtained and the number of "operations conducted". It goes on to assert that such things are of more "strategic importance" than the actual number of bombings.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the point of the intelligence tips and the military operations is to diminish the bombings. And whatever presidential advisor put together this argument simply forgot to balance his mental checkbook, too.

Europe is the model for the place we want Iraq to get to: a parlimentary democracy in form, with a robust economy, exceptionally competent security services, stable national institutions, and a high degree of personal freedom.

And Europe still has an "islamic militancy" problem? Europe is still in danger?

The Muslim world from Morroco to the Phillipines, from southern Russia to sub-saharan Africa is also an intractible fact. It is not going to be argued away either.

Nor is the presence of Muslims anywhere else in the world.

So if it's so terrible, what do we do about it?