Archive for the ‘Hatred’ Category

Suicide-Terrorism: It’s Time President-Elect Demonstrates He Understands, Has a Plan

November 6, 2008

Despite a noisy campaign, neither presidential candidate ever really understood jihadist terror. Now it is essential that the origins and purpose of suicide-terrorism become fully apparent to the president-elect.

The core meanings of jihadist operations have little or nothing to do with criminality, deprivation or oppression, but rather are founded in fear, hatred and Islamist supremacism. These deeply held personal feelings derive from patterns of shared belief and indoctrination. A consuming horror of death, yearning for the ecstasy of anticipated union with Allah, grotesque joy from targeting “others” who “lack sacredness” and an abiding hatred of “apostates” and “infidels” are the real motivators that drive suicide bombers to their atrocities.

This 2000 US Navy (USN) image shows US Navy and Marine Corps ... 
This 2000 US Navy image shows US Navy and Marine Corps security personnel patrolling past the damaged US Navy destroyer USS Cole following the October 12. 2000 terrorist suicide bombing attack on the ship in Aden, Yemen.(AFP/HO USN/File/Lyle G. Becker)

Louis Rene Beres and Clare Lopez
The Washington Times

Suicide-bombing terrorism comes from centuries of Islamic doctrine, derived from what is held to be divinely revealed scripture. But declarations, charters and Islamist fatwas provide only an abstract of juridical texts compiled by Islamic scholars. These define jihad as just war against non-Muslims to establish the religion. This is not the understanding we expected from our presidential candidates, but it is what jihadist terror is all about.

The monstrousness of suicide terror-violence leaves humanity grasping for some explanation to bridge the gap between those who would deliberately inflict such anguish and ourselves. For many Americans, and likely for our president-elect, such barbarism defies not only language, but also the very definition of what it means to be human. The inexpressibility of pain impedes our ability to recognize terror-violence as evil and unforgivable. Instead, it is easier to fall back on widespread but legally incorrect celebrations of terrorists as “freedom fighters.”

Understanding jihadist terror-violence is a responsibility that carries legal consequences for those who swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It carries existential consequences for all who cherish a way of life based on the values of Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. For both citizen and policy-maker, the most important truth is that the jihadist terrorist fights not only to compel unbelievers to embrace Islam. The jihadist terrorist kills and dies to end the sovereignty of unbelievers, a sovereignty that prevents the supremacy of Islam from transforming Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam.

Jihadist terror is literally commanded by Allah in the Koran. “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power … to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of God and your enemies.” Early Muslims seized eagerly on such divine injunctions, launching a campaign of political assassination against local Jewish poets and leaders. These killings were followed by the siege and expulsion of Jewish tribes around Medina, the massacre of Jewish men, and enslavement of their women and children. Horrified, other tribes capitulated, fled or converted to Islam. Calculated, calibrated application of terror can work, and jihadist terrorists know it.

German soldiers -- with the NATO-led International Security ...
German soldiers — with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) — on a night patrol near Kunduz, northern Afghanistan. A defence ministry spokesman says a suicide bomber targetted German troops in Kunduz, without providing any details on the number of casualties or deaths.(AFP/DDP/File/Michael Kappeler)


Iraqis are Being Attacked and Killed for Returning to Their Homes; Time Has Moved But Hatred Has Stayed

October 14, 2008

By Corinne Reilly, McClatchy Newspapers 

BAGHDAD — Haj Ali’s family had been home for less than a month when a makeshift bomb blew off part of his garage. The message was clear: Go back to wherever you came from.

Two years ago, when Sunni Muslims began killing Shiites in Ali’s west Baghdad neighborhood, he quickly gathered a few belongings and fled. Last month, his family returned home. They didn’t stay long.
Children smile as they look at a U.S. army soldier on a patrol ... 
Children smile as they look at a U.S. army soldier on a patrol with the Iraqi police in Baghdad’s Ameen district, October 14, 2008.(Thaier al-Sudani/Reuters)

“We thought it was safe,” Ali said. “Now I see that for us, home means death. There are still people who don’t want us there.”

Only a small fraction of the roughly 5 million Iraqis who’ve fled their neighborhoods in fear since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion have returned, although returns have picked up since the Iraqi government last month began urging people home.

In Baghdad , where most of the sectarian cleansing has taken place, about 8 percent of the people who moved within the country have gone back to their neighborhoods, according to the International Organization for Migration .

Read the rest:

McCain Calls Congressman’s Racist Insinuation “A Brazen and Baseless Attack”

October 11, 2008

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. John McCain called a statement by a Georgia congressman Saturday, which compared the feeling at recent Republican rallies to those of segregationist George Wallace, “a brazen and baseless attack.”

Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, who has been praised by McCain in the past, issued his statement after several days of headline-grabbing anger aimed at Democratic nominee Barack Obama from some attendees at campaign rallies of McCain and running mate Gov. Sarah Palin.

“What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse,” Lewis said in a statement.

George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama,” wrote the Democrat.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, and Sen. John McCain traded tough statements Saturday. 
Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, and Sen. John McCain
traded tough statements Saturday.

McCain has written about Lewis, praising his actions in Selma, Alabama, during the civil rights movement. The Republican nominee even said during a summer faith forum that Lewis was one of three men he would turn to for counsel as president.

But the Arizona senator blasted Lewis‘ remarks, and called on Obama to repudiate them.

“Congressman John Lewis’ comments represent a character attack against Gov. Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale,” he said in a Saturday afternoon statement released by his campaign.

“The notion that legitimate criticism of Sen. Obama’s record and positions could be compared to Gov. George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I’ve always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.

Read the rest:

Race and Racism Enter the Election Debate

by Stephen Collinson

CHICAGO (AFP) – A war of words with racial undertones marked the White House race Sunday after civil rights icon John Lewis accused Republican John McCain of sowing “hatred” against Barack Obama.
McCain, who has been trying to tamp down abuse of the Democratic nominee at his campaign events, reacted furiously, lashing out against Lewis, who only a few weeks ago he described as one of the Americans he most admired.

The latest political turbulence came just over three weeks before the November 4 election, with Obama building a steady lead over McCain on the national level, and on the state-by-state electoral map.

Read the rest:

A Speech That Fell Short

March 19, 2008

By Michael Gerson
The Washingon Post 
Wednesday, March 19, 2008; Page A15
Barack Obama has run a campaign based on a simple premise: that words of unity and hope matter to America. Now he has been forced by his charismatic, angry pastor to argue that words of hatred and division don’t really matter as much as we thought.
Obama’s speech in Philadelphia yesterday made this argument as well as it could be made. He condemned the Rev. Jeremiah Wright‘s views in strong language — and embraced Wright as a wayward member of the family. He made Wright and his congregation a symbol of both the nobility and “shocking ignorance” of the African American experience — and presented himself as a leader who transcends that conflicted legacy. The speech recognized the historical reasons for black anger — and argued that the best response to those grievances is the adoption of Obama’s own social and economic agenda.
It was one of the finest political performances under pressure since John F. Kennedy at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960. It also fell short in significant ways.
The problem with Obama’s argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of African Americans. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking to many Americans who wonder how any presidential candidate could be so closely associated with an adviser who refers to the “U.S. of KKK-A” and urges God to “damn” our country. .
Obama’s excellent and important speech on race in America did little to address his strange tolerance for the anti-Americanism of his spiritual mentor.
Take an issue that Obama did not specifically confront yesterday. In a 2003 sermon, Wright claimed, “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”
This accusation does not make Wright, as Obama would have it, an “occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy.” It makes Wright a dangerous man. He has casually accused America of one of the most monstrous crimes in history, perpetrated by a conspiracy of medical Mengeles. .
If Wright believes what he said, he should urge the overthrow of the U.S. government, which he views as guilty of unspeakable evil.
If I believed Wright were correct, I would join him in that cause.
But Wright’s accusation is batty, reflecting a sputtering, incoherent hatred for America. And his pastoral teaching may put lives at risk because the virus that causes AIDS spreads more readily in an atmosphere of denial, quack science and conspiracy theories.
Obama’s speech implied that these toxic views are somehow parallel to the stereotyping of black men by Obama’s grandmother, which Obama said made him “cringe” — both are the foibles of family. But while Grandma may have had some issues to work through, Wright is accusing the American government of trying to kill every member of a race. There is a difference.
Yet didn’t George Bush and other Republican politicians accept the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn’t financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.
The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church — a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church’s pastor attacked the U.S. government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists see as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the candidate attending this church lacked judgment and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.
In Philadelphia, Obama attempted to explain Wright’s anger as typical of the civil rights generation, with its “memories of humiliation and doubt and fear.” But Wright has the opposite problem: He ignored the message of Martin Luther King Jr. and introduced a new generation to the politics of hatred.
King drew a different lesson from the oppression he experienced: “I’ve seen too much hate to want to hate myself; hate is too great a burden to bear. I’ve seen it on the faces of too many sheriffs of the South. . . . Hate distorts the personality. . . . The man who hates can’t think straight; the man who hates can’t reason right; the man who hates can’t see right; the man who hates can’t walk right.”
Barack Obama is not a man who hates — but he chose to walk with a man who does.

Wanted: Inflammatory Spiritual Leader

September 6, 2007

James G. Zumwalt
The Washington Times
September 6, 2007

Several months ago, Shi’ite cleric Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr crawled out of hiding in Iran to incite followers to violence in Iraq. His rhetoric leaves one only to imagine the kind of job description that might have attracted Sheik al-Sadr and those of his ilk to their calling:

Wanted: Inflammatory spiritual leader to enrage listeners to become suicide bombers or to commit other acts of violence; candidate need not practice what he preaches; extensive religious training not required but claiming a father who was a spiritual leader is helpful; compensation determined by candidate’s ability to influence followers to tithe 20 percent of income — which candidate can, at his own discretion, use to distribute to the poor or retain for himself; candidate must be HIV-positive i.e., able to preach Hatred, Intolerance and Violence so as to effectively infect followers and spread this disease.Such is the world of the Islamofascist imam.Read the rest at: