A Bad Week For the Muslim Brotherhood

Two weeks ago Muslim Brotherhood leaders from across Africa and the Middle East gathered in Istanbul to regroup following the ouster of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, former head of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (and who I noted previously here was recruited into the group while studying in the US). But even more setbacks suffered by the group in a number of countries this past week, another meeting might be in order.

Here’s a rundown of the week’s events:

625x351xprotest-egypt.jpg.pagespeed.ic.G-693j9HKC

Egypt: The most prominent example, the MB there rejected calls for reconciliation meetings by the interim government and demanded Morsi’s reinstatement as president before any negotiations. That’s not remotely likely. So that set the stage this week for a game of chicken, with the MB refusing to stand down and Defense Minister Sisi calling for rallies yesterday in support of the interim government, ostensibly to legitimize a crackdown on a terror campaign being waged by Morsi supporters against police and military targets in the Sinai. Of note is the statement last week by senior MB leader that the terrorist acts would stop when Morsi would be reinstated, indicating some degree of MB control over the terror cells.

The result yesterday were massive rallies supporting both sides, predominately backing the new anti-MB government with as many as 35 million taking the streets in support of the army despite a fatwa issued by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the senior international MB jurist prohibiting participation in the protests. Those protests led to a series of clashes last night and this morning that have reportedly left dozens dead. Meanwhile, Morsi was charged with murder and other crimes by the new government this week, and will probably be sent to the same prison currently housing former Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak.

The MB strategy appears to be leveraging the deaths of supporters killed during nearly continuous clashes with the police and army to gain domestic and international sympathy. Yet that doesn’t seem to be happening. Some clashes in which MB supporters were killed have not been with the government, but residents of the areas occupied by the MB protests. And assaults on Egyptian and foreign journalists alike by Morsi supporters and news reports of torture and killing of so-called ‘infiltrators’ at the MB protests aren’t helping either.

And while the MB might have temporarily taken comfort in the Obama administration’s decision this week to halt the transfer of a few F-16 aircraft to the Egyptian military (though the administration continued such military hardware transfers while Morsi declared himself dictator in November and was killing protesters earlier this year), any hope of backing their ‘legitimacy’ campaign were dashed when administration officials said that no determination will probably be made as to whether Morsi’s ouster was a coup or not, which would trigger sanctions against the Egyptian military under a law passed by Congress last year.

So the MB doesn’t appear to be gaining support, and the majority of Egyptians appear willing to hold their nose over the violence against the MB while the army and the police attempt to create some stability. The result will be an increase in the violence and more deaths, and probably the low-grade terrorism in the Sinai will also escalate into more acts of terrorism prompting greater crackdowns.

Gaza: Another big loser in Morsi’s overthrow is the Hamas government in Gaza. In recent weeks the Egyptian military has put a stranglehold on trafficking through tunnels, which provides Hamas with considerable funds. A UN estimate this week said that 80 percent of the traffic through the tunnels running from Egypt into Gaza has been shut down. The Hamas economic minister said the Egyptian crackdown has cost the terror group $230 million – one tenth of the gross domestic product of Gaza. Things aren’t likely to improve with the Egyptian government either, as one of the charges against former President Morsi is collaboration with Hamas in his prison escape back in 2011

Read more at PJ Media

American Islamists Rally Behind MB Amid Egypt Protests

by John Rossomando
IPT News
July 2, 2013

Islamic Assassination: Silencing Freedom Fighters

la-fg-wn-tunisian-leader-assassinated-20130206-001By :

Tunisia, one of the most secular Arab countries in modern times—and the first country to experience the “Arab Spring”—was also recently the first Arab country to experience an Islamic assassination since the Arab Spring began.  The BBC explains:

 

Tunisian opposition politician Chokri Belaid has been shot dead outside his home in the capital, Tunis.  Relatives say Mr Belaid was shot in the neck and head on his way to work.  He was a prominent secular opponent of the moderate [sic] Islamist-led government and his murder has sparked protests around the country, with police firing tear gas to disperse angry crowds.

Although the BBC report states “It is not known who is responsible for the attack on the politician,” who Belaid was—a leader of the Democratic Patriots party, which has been at the forefront of challenging the Islamist-led government of Tunisia—speaks for itself.  As French President Francois Hollande put it, “This murder robs Tunisia of one of its most courageous and free voices.”

The Islamist Ennahda party naturally denies any involvement—even as it, not to mention all Tunisian Islamists, had the most to gain from the silencing of Belaid. According to the Islamist party’s president, Rashid Gannouchi,  “Ennahda is completely innocent of the assassination of Belaid.”

Neither the BBC nor the Ennahda party bother mentioning the fact that, mere days before Belaid was shot to death, fatwas calling for his death were publicly proclaimed.  For example, one video shows a bearded Tunisian cleric, of the Salafi brand, publicly denouncing Belaid as an “infidel” whose must be killed—“not according to me but the prophet!”—even as those around him cry “Allahu Akbar!”

Just as Arab-Spring fever came to Egypt following Tunisia—and in both countries, saw the empowerment of Islamist parties, namely the Ennahda and Muslim Brotherhood—so too have Islamic fatwas to assassinate those opposing the Islamist agenda come to Egypt following Tunisia.  Aside from the fact that, during the popular protests against President Muhammad Morsi and his Sharia-heavy constitution, his Islamist allies issued any number of fatwas permitting the spilling of the blood of those opposing him, some days ago, Dr. Mahmoud Sha’ban issued a fatwa on live TV calling for the killing of Muhammad el-Baradei and Hamdin Sabhi, leaders of Egypt’s secular National Salvation Front party for being openly critical of Morsi and the Brotherhood.  He unhesitatingly pronounced that the “Sharia of Allah” demands their killing, basing his fatwa on the words of Muhammad—to behead those who oppose the leader—as found in the canonical collections of Sahih Muslim.

Read more at Front Page

 

 

People Do Vote For Tyranny

Demonstrations during the Iranian revolution, 1979

Demonstrations during the Iranian revolution, 1979

by Clare Lopez:  As the world watches and waits for the Egyptian people to vote in a nationwide referendum to be held December 15 on a new constitution drafted largely by the Muslim Brotherhood, it would be well to consider another constitutional referendum from 33 years ago when another people who’d just been through a revolution went to the polls and cast their votes firmly in favor of tyranny.On October 24, 1979, after a tumultuous year of revolution, the Iranian people turned out by the millions and voted overwhelmingly (over 98%) to approve a new constitution that subjugated the country to the rule of Islamic Law under the leadership of a single man – the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – an Islamic cleric with unlimited power.

The vote was no snap response, as the full text of the new Iranian constitution had been published for the electorate’s consideration more than four months earlier (from June, 1979). More than 15 million Iranian voters willingly chose to subordinate themselves, their children and their country to an Islamic theocratic dictatorship, whose provisions were spelled out to them and accepted by them in an explicitly worded constitutional document that described the totalitarian system of Velayat-e Faqih (Rule of the Jurisprudent) and dedicated the nation to jihad.

Further, the preamble to the constitution made clear that the Iranian revolution was not intended to stop at the country’s borders but rather would strive for the formation of a “single world community” (ummah) in accordance with the “universal values of Islam,” thus committing Iran and its military forces to open-ended aggression and warfare (which followed soon enough).

While the draft Egyptian constitution contains no such institution as a Supreme Leader or Velayat-e Faqih, it does state in Article 2 that “Principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation,” thus ensuring that genuine liberal democracy (in which the people and their representatives craft laws free of theological constraints) will have no chance in the new Egypt.

The Iranian people overwhelmingly supported Khomeini during the Iranian revolution in 1979.

The Iranian people overwhelmingly supported Khomeini during the Iranian revolution in 1979.

Also, as both Andrew McCarthy (here) and Barry Rubin (here) point out, the new constitution makes clear that implementation of sharia will be far stricter under the Muslim Brotherhood than it ever was under Mubarak: Article 219 defines the “principles of Islamic Sharia” to be bound by “sources accepted in Sunni doctrines and by the larger community,” which means the four classical schools of Sunni jurisprudence and the Islamic institution of scholarly consensus (ijma). The Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi’i schools hold that the principles of Islamic Law were fixed many centuries ago and have remained immutable ever since.

So, despite a cursory nod in the direction of individual “rights and freedoms” (Article 81), the very next words of the Egyptian draft document, stipulating that such rights and freedoms “shall be practiced in a manner not conflicting with the principles pertaining to State and society included in Part I of this Constitution,” make clear that means Egyptians get whatever “human rights” are allowed under sharia (see below).

Just like the 1990 Cairo Declaration of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which exempted all Muslim countries from compliance with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and declared that under Islam, human rights means sharia and only sharia.

Further, much as Article 96 of the Iranian constitution designated the Guardian Council (comprised of 12 jurist experts in Islamic Law) to determine the “compatibility of the legislation passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly with the laws of Islam,” so too does Egypt’s new constitution designate al-Azhar’s “Senior Scholars … to be consulted in matters pertaining to Islamic law.”
Thus, a non-elected assembly of Islamic jurists will be granted the authority to approve or disapprove any legislation the Egyptian parliament passes, with judgment to be based solely on Islamic laws set down in the 10th century.

Those laws assign the death penalty for adultery, apostasy from Islam, homosexuality and, in some cases, for blasphemy or slander (criticism) against Islam. They establish legal inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims and between men and women. And lest any think these laws apply only to Egyptians or only to Muslims, sharia also mandates jihad against non-believers for the express purpose of imposing sharia globally.

In addition, as Yousef al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s senior jurist, decades of accumulated Brotherhood ideology, and the campaign speeches of Ikhwan stalwarts like Khairat al-Shater or Mohammed Morsi himself all attest, mainstream Islamic doctrine also mandates virulent hatred of infidels and Jews.

The Muslim Brotherhood may not move immediately to implement all of these principles, but approval of the new constitution would give them the authority and the popular mandate to do so. Morsi himself has left no doubt about how he intends to govern, pledging to an enthusiastic crowd in a May 2012 campaign speech on Egyptian TV that he is dedicated to “The shari’a, then the shari’a, and finally, the shari’a.”

And the thing is, the Egyptian people, who are over 70% literate, know all this either from their own reading or through their imams and mosques. Andrew Bostom has been indefatigable in drawing our attention to credible surveys of the Egyptian public which unambiguously and overwhelmingly demonstrate that they want “strict application of Sharia law in every Islamic country (74%),” to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries (91%)” and to “unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate (67%).”

As recently as December 2010, a Pew survey found that 82% of Egyptians favor the stoning to death of people who commit adultery, 77% approved of whipping and hand amputation for theft and 84% said they thought apostates from Islam should be executed.

Despite the last spasms of protest from Egypt’s tragically outnumbered liberals and secularists, does anyone still have any serious doubts about how this referendum is going to go? Backed and emboldened by the Obama administration in Washington, D.C., the Muslim Brotherhood has orchestrated its takeover of Egypt masterfully from the beginning: It won the initial constitutional amendments referendum by a landslide, then, together with its Salafist allies, grabbed an overwhelming majority in the January 2012 parliamentary elections, before taking the presidency in June 2012.

As Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, though, “The constitution was always the prize” and now that looks to be soon within their grasp as well. Once the December 15 up or down vote enshrines these sharia principles as law of the land, just as in Iran, there will be no going back for Egypt for a long, long time.

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 20 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

State Dept: Morsi ordered Egyptian embassy in DC to take legal action against US citizens

By Patrick Poole at PJMedia:

A potential diplomatic storm may be brewing prior to the arrival next week of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in New York City and the White House.

According to an unclassified daily brief circulated by the State Department Executive Secretariat this afternoon, Morsi ordered the Egyptian embassy in DC to take legal action against the U.S. citizens who are alleged to be behind the “Innocence of Muslims” video that has flamed tensions in the Middle East.

The State Department briefing states:

EGYPT ISSUES ARREST WARRANTS FOR INFLAMMATORY VIDEO

(U)  Egypt’s general prosecutor issued arrest warrants and referred to trial seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and American pastor Terry Jones on charges linked to the inflammatory video, media report.  The accused, all of whom are believed to be outside Egypt, could face the death penalty if convicted of harming national unity, insulting Islam, and spreading false information.  DRL’s Office of International Religious Freedom comments President Morsy reportedly directed the Egyptian Embassy in Washington to take legal action in the United States against the individuals.  The Egyptian government has been an ardent supporter of anti-defamation resolutions at the UN.  (Ops/Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor’s Office of International Religious Freedom, AP)

Should President Obama be hosting President Morsi next week, when Mosi has directed his government to launch a legal attack on the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens?

Steve Emerson on Sun News Network with Michael Coren – Political correctness has damaged all aspects of life

Investigative Project on Terror :

mrctv video here

Michael Coren: It’s not just what happened last week and it’s still continuing to happen all over the world, it’s also the reaction of people you think should know better to this. They, they’re blaming the, that idiot who made this stupid film. That’s not the issue, for goodness sake! The issue is mass violence murder, hostility, craziness, and …. Steve Emerson has been writing and commenting, commentating on these issues for so long now and really predicted this would happen. Steve, welcome to you. It’s always good to have you on the show.

Steven Emerson: Hi, Michael. Good to be here with you, and you’re right, and actually, in the 17 years I’ve been working on, I did a documentary in 1994 called “Jihad in America” and in 1996 I got my first death threat. This is way before today. Today’s New York Times, you know, gave all the grievances; why Muslims are angry. None of the grievances happened in the 1990′s and yet the ’93 World Trade Center bombing happened, you know, 17 years ago. So, the bottom line here is the issue is not the film. The issue is the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and their like don’t believe in the First Amendment., don’t believe in free speech, and the irony of course is that the, the liberal pundits in this Administration said, “Well, if we have democracy in the Muslim world, it’ll satiate their political anger. They’ll chatter within the political system. What they’re doing is they’re imposing a totalitarian system on their own people, and now they’re imposing it on us.

COREN: Yes. This is so significant. We may never win over people in the Middle East. The Islamic World may always believe that censorship is the order of the day, but it’s beginning, as you say, to influence people in the West. People who have called themselves liberals for so long, are saying, “Well, you shouldn’t provoke them, that the moviemaker was in the wrong. We should change our way of life to accommodate theirs.

EMERSON: This is, listen, Michael. This is big. Hollywood now feature any more Islamic terrorists or protagonists. In fact, they submit their scripts to Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Publishing houses, like the one doing on the one on the Danish cartoons, won’t republish the Danish cartoons, right? So, we’re self censoring ourselves. We have this culture or relativism that Western values are no longer superior, that the First Amendment, I mean that the way we reacted was, we regret the fact that we have a First Amendment, and then most reporters started investigating the crazy guy that did the film., when the real investigation should have been about the fact that these people insist that their values which is, are totalitarian should be applied to our system, and the President should have stood up, and instead of saying, demanding that our diplomats be protected, should have said, “We have the First Amendment, that’s a sacred right of this country, of the West. It’s the bedrock of Western civilization, and unless you respect tha, t we’re not going to deal with you.

COREN: You mentioned, and for those who are not aware of this, you mentioned the Danish cartoon. There is an entire book written about the Kurt Westergaard cartoon of Muhammad. The entire book is devoted to that subject. There is not one single cartoon in the entire bloody book.

EMERSON: Yeah, well, that’s right, I mean. And in this country, by way. And in Europe, in sympathy to the Danish cartoonists,. newspapers around Europe published the cartoons. In this country, out of the 300 newspapers, only two newspapers republished the cartoons. And the book that’s being published, of course, you know about South Park, the televisions comedy series. They censored, you know, a whole series that featured a satire on Muhammad. They satire all religions. The reality is that, that they, empowering them now has given them the right to basically impose values and also it has stoked new violence that we’ve never seen before. This is not going away. This is the beginning of a new chapter, and in fact in the next four years, I’m going to predict this right now: that you, that we will now see the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, a whole, it’s going to take away. It’s going to replicate the sphere of influence that the Soviet Union once had. It’ll be the Muslim Brotherhood Union. They’ll have Iran on their side. They’ll probably have nuclear weapons. And, and the world will be a much more dangerous place

COREN: Well, it’s interesting that you say that because the Soviets were who they were, we knew, and there was a certain consensus of, of aspiration if you like. And they probably also acknowledged that their sphere of influence stopped at a certain place. They did want to survive. They didn’t want Armageddon. They valued life over death as opposed to the Muslim Brothers. This is a very, very different confrontation now. And they are winning. And we have this Fifth Column that is incredibly large. Are there are liberal journalists, any journalists on the left who are standing up and saying, “Hey, guys, what are you doing here? We believe in freedom of speech.”

EMERSON : Well, there are some, interesting enough, there are some. Well, there aren’t many. I’ll tell you the truth. I mean, you won’t find in the New York, the irony of course is that liberals and the ACLU should be standing. The ACLU for example, the American Civil Liberties Union, was founded on the basis that there shouldn’t be any blasphemy laws, and yet in the last ten years they’ve appointed members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. to all their boards, who believe in blasphemy laws. And the reality is, we are essentially implementing them, although we don’t admit it, these type of self censorship, blasphemy laws. People won’t publish books. People are, I’m doing a new documentary. It’s coming out in the next week, it’s called “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception.” It’s about the Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States. I cannot tell you the reactions I’ve gotten from major cable channels who are afraid to air it. They won’t admit it, but they’re afraid, right? And that’s affecting our freedom of speech already, without openly admitting that they’re being intimidated. So we’re already being affected by it.

COREN: Of course, and it does come down to this. It really does. Blasphemy laws. People will try and twist and turn and say, “Well, provocation and offense, Many things which are offensive and provocative. We have certain laws such as

EMERSON: You know what? Being not a Muslim, being not a Muslim is offensive. I was just reading a transcript – and we do a lot of undercover work – and I was reading a transcript of a group based in New York, but they’re Jamaat e Islami, called the Islamic Circle of North America, and they admitted their entire mission in North America and around the world is Da’wa, to convert others to Islam and they freight it however in the cultural neutral term of trying to be, to open people eyes to another religion, but they admit in this conference that, our purpose here is to convert everybody to Islam, and in fact Islam was on top of the world until they lost at the gates of Vienna, and then they’ve been on the bottom of the world. And how do they explain this? The West and the United States now is, has been involved in a conspiracy to subjugate Islam. So no matter what we do, Michael. No matter what year, they’ll always have grievance. OK? And they believe we are at fault for the fact that they are at the bottom of the totem pole in the world today. And the reality is, you know, the great scholar Bernard Lewis wrote a great piece after 2011, after 2001, called “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” And I recommend that for everybody. And it shows that, that, you know, the New York Times story that they’re angry about Gitmo. They’re angry about the Iraq War. They’re angry about Afghanistan. I tell you, those things are, yes, they’re angry about that. They’re also angry about the fact that the United States, you know, has freedom of speech.

COREN: You know, I wish we had more time. Saddam Hussein was hated by Islamic Fundamentalists. He was a secularist who dealt with fundamentalists in a way, well, maybe others should have, but hey had no time for him at all. This nonsense about conspiracy and persecution. What you say, it comes down to blasphemy. The very people who consummate dramas about how evil the Medieval Church was and blasphemy, are the very same people who just open the door to Islamic fanatics and say, “You have more blasphemy laws, we’ll accept them because we’re too frightened and intimidated to actually stand up to these people, and say, ‘Enough is enough.’”

EMERSON: Michael, when was the last time a Westerner or US mob or Canadian mob attacked a, embassy, Muslim embassy or consulate for the tens of thousands of videos on YouTube and on Internet site with Islamic clerics calling for the killing of Christians and Jews? I can’t remember one.

COREN: It’s never happened, and it never will. Steve, a great pleasure as it was We’ll have you back in the show very soon. Thanks so very much.

EMERSON: You’re very welcome.

The Truth About the Wave of Anti-American Demonstrations

by Barry Rubin:

Most of the debate over the current wave of anti-American demonstrations in the Middle East is, to be frank, pretty silly. It disregards both historical experience and basic political sense. Consider the following points:

–There have been several such waves before, notably over Salman Rushdie, the 2001 attacks, and the “Danish cartoons.” Leaving some death and destruction in their wake, these waves of demonstrations then fade away, bringing no significant political change. No amount of apology and groveling had any perceivable positive effect. This one will also end soon, but the battle for political power in each country continues, as does the decline in American credibility and influence.

–The causes of these demonstrations are not some act of Islamophobia, but the agitation of revolutionary Islamist groups that work systematically every day to build anti-Americanism, hatred of the West, and the loathing of Jews and Christians.

–As long as free speech exists in the West, there will always be events that provide pretexts for outrage. Radical Islamists will make sure that even the most obscure of events can be used. It has also been shown how things that happen in the West are deliberately distorted. For example, Danish Islamic clerics added cartoons that had nothing to do with those published by a Danish magazine to intensify anger and hatred.

–The task is not to stamp out “Islamophobia” any more than Soviet Communist or German Nazi propaganda could be dealt with by proving the West didn’t hate workers or did hate Jews. The problem is not some cultural misunderstanding or Western fault, but an ideology seeking to seize state power. That ideology and its many sympathizers and even a lot of its local enemies know that building hysterical hatred against America and the West, Christians, Jews, and Israel benefit them.

This is nothing new. I’ve seen the documents in which the U.S. government decided not to publicize the Nazi ties of some Middle Eastern leaders including Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. And the CIA decided (in 1950) not to pursue the Palestinian Arab leader Amin al-Husaini for war crimes, though he had been a close collaborator of Hitler. Why? Because it was concluded that such information might make them more, not less, popular.

–Examining the current developments, the precise situation in every country is different:

In Libya, the radical Islamists want to overturn a U.S.-sponsored government that will not give them a full Sharia state and which they see as a sell-out. The government doesn’t like the anti-American attacks, but its armed forces and administration are heavily infiltrated by radical Islamists, so it is not a dependable protector for the very Americans who put it in power.

In Tunisia, a country that is relatively secular by Arabic-speaking standards, the most extreme Islamists are especially frustrated. They are strong enough to cause trouble but not strong enough to pose a serious challenge to power. The Muslim Brotherhood controls the government but is in a serious coalition with moderates and is being cautious as a result. This makes the radicals all the more provocative. And since the Brotherhood, in part, sympathizes with them, it will not fully crack down.

In Egypt, the radicals are a front for the Muslim Brotherhood government. The Obama administration has taught them that radicalism and anti-Americanism pay, or at least cost nothing. The Brotherhood regime would like to figure out a way to prove it hates the United States without any cost. Now it knows how to do so. Let the radicals go into the embassy with no interference by the security forces, and the Obama administration will still give it $1.6 billion (including security assistance to an army now controlled by the Brotherhood!), help it buy two German submarines, plan to cancel $1 billion in debt, and make its president an honored guest at the White House. Since what the radicals do doesn’t injure the regime’s interest, it will let them do what they want. The Brotherhood will even join in the demonstrations. There’s nothing to lose.

In other places the goal is to build the revolutionary Islamist movement. And when everyone forgets about this silly little video there will be more pretexts: American support for governments including those of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Israel; anniversaries of past events; terrorists being held in prison; politicized Muslim religious festivities.

–The very numerous Islamists and lots of mainstream Muslim clerics and intellectuals stir up hatred of the West every day even when you aren’t watching. You see the demonstrations outside the embassies but you do not see the lessons in the classrooms, the sermons in the mosques, the articles on the websites, and all of the myriad ways that hatred is spread and radicalization carried out. And virtually no one dares dissent — or they would be quickly shouted down and threatened with death — except in the little ghetto enclaves of liberals and in the few more balanced newspapers and less radical television stations.

There is no end to their list of grievances. You can’t deny them an opportunity to make anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Christian propaganda because they will find one or invent one. You cannot appease someone who is totally determined never to be appeased and who prefers to advance step by step to total power, the fundamental transformation of their societies, the destruction of Israel, and the expulsion of the United States and all of its interests in the area stretching from Morocco through Indonesia

And as the Westerners waste time, ink, and conscience on “What did we do wrong?” and “Why do they hate us?” and “How can we prove we really love Muslims?” the radicals go on arming and organizing. The ultimate irony is that even if America gives them guns (Libya, Syria) and money (Egypt, Pakistan), or intervenes diplomatically on their behalf (Gaza Strip), or proclaims them the absolute best of buddies (Turkey), this will make not one iota of difference.

Read more at PJMedia