| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Earlier this month, on August 4th, I posted a quote from Al Qaeda deputy leader Aymen al-Zawahiri:
"Our message is clear: You will not be safe until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and wealth and stop supporting the corrupt rulers," al-Zawahiri said.
I commented:
He says we have to stop "stealing" their oil before Al Qaeda will stop killing civilians. In our view, we are actually paying for their oil. I guarantee that oil prices worldwide would be a lot lower if this were not the case. So he's saying we have to stop buying oil before Al Qaeda will stop attacking. Even OPEC doesn't want us to stop buying oil from Arab nations. This makes it evident that Al Qaeda's official statement is that even if we withdrew troops from Iraq, Al Qaeda would still continue attacking.
In his latest article, Victor Davis Hanson makes the identical observation:
Take the August 4 declaration of al Qaeda’s second in command, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. He promises even “more destruction” for London, and tells us precisely why.
Many in the West assume that those mass murders were payback for the United Kingdom’s presence in Iraq, even though its troops are mostly confined to non-Wahhabi areas in the south.
But no, the Dr. instead lists a number of grievances beyond Iraq that justify his terrorist cadres murdering innocents. One complaint, for example, is “Stopping the robbing of our oil and resources.”
VDH adds much more:
Throughout this war we have an understandable, if ethnocentric, habit of ignoring what our enemies actually say. Instead we chatter on, don’t listen, and in self-absorbed fashion impart our own motives for their hatred. We live on the principles of the Enlightenment and so worship our god Reason, thus assuming that even our adversaries accept such rational protocols as their own.
So they talk on and on of beheading, suicide bombing, another holocaust, and blowing thousands of us up, while we snooze, now and again waking in the midst of a war to regurgitate Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, flushed Korans, the abusive Patriot Act, and the latest quip of Donald Rumsfeld.
VDH provides many quotes in which the Islamofascists plainly say what they mean. Read the whole thing.
#1
#2There is a distinction between discussion that promotes something and discussion that opposes it. Do you object to discussion of terrorism that opposes it?
#3At the link above, you gave your approval to this argument from Daniel Pipes:
[I]t makes no sense to promulgate the enemy viewpoint when a country is at war. Even though the great majority of viewers, listeners, and readers will be repulsed by the views of extremists, no less surely will a small minority find these attractive and compelling. We saw, for example, how the prominent exposition of Osama bin Laden's ideas in 2001 inspired suicide bombers, including several of the London terrorists.
And now you're linking to an article to Victor Davis Hanson, in which his very first sentence quotes Ibrahim Mudeiris as saying:
You will find that the Jews were behind all the civil strife in this world. The Jews are behind the suffering of the nations.
If you don't see the contradiction, I don't know what else to say.
#4I suppose you could consider all discussion to be "promulgation." I favor discussion of terrorism that opposes it, as opposed to discussion of terrorism that promotes it.
VDH provides many quotes in which the Islamofascists plainly say what they mean. Read the whole thing.
It sounds like Victor David Hanson is helping to propagandize terrorism.