Two Complementary Pieces on E-Jihad

The Economist has put together a readable and important survey on e-jihad (which may again be subscription only - if so, apologies). It looks how the inherent characteristics of the internet make it an enormous asset for jihadis and would-be jihadis, providing a secure means of communication (thanks to the proliferation of top-end encryption software), a forum for indoctrination and recruitment (including the usual appalling videos of killings and beheadings), and a means of disseminating information and tactics.

Meanwhile, the latest issue of Middle East Quarterly includes My Cyber Counter-jihad. The author, Shannen Rossmiller was an unremarkable individual, a municipal judge in Montana until she began infiltrating jihadist websites (by posing as a sympathizer). As part of her efforts, she learned Arabic and then began cooperating with the FBI in building cases against would-be jihadis, including one soldier who was looking to betray his comrades. Sadly (but unsurprisingly), Rossmiller is now forced to have permanent security for herself and her family.

Musical Evidence of South Park Conservatives?

A punk-rap band by the name of Stuck Mojo made waves recently with a music video for their single "Open Season." Basically it's an attack on militant Islam and terrorists invocation of the cloak of Islam as a religion of peace. Check it out.


(h/t LGF)

Politics and Strange Bedfellows

An anti-Wahhabist Shi'ite cleric is killed in Iran; the Iranian government condemns his murder. On matters of principle, I hate agreeing with Iran. But outspoken Muslim opponents of Wahhabism are simply too few. On the other hand, such statements coming from a Shi'ite might actually be counterproductive - it is Sunnis who need to stand up against perversions of their faith.

A Brilliant Article and a Bold Act

Over at Slate (which I admit to reading only rarely anymore), the inestimable Christopher Hitchens destroys Muslim Rage Boy:

But how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?

We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt. In front of me is a copy of this week's Economist, which states that Rushdie's 1989 death warrant was "punishment for the book's unflattering depiction of the Prophet Muhammad." There is no direct depiction of the prophet in this work of fiction, and the reverie about his many wives occurs in the dream of a madman. Nobody in Ayatollah Khomeini's circle could possibly have read the book for him before he issued a fatwah, which made it dangerous to possess. Yet on that occasion, the bookstore chains of America pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves, just as Borders shamefully pulled Free Inquiry (a magazine for which I write) after it reproduced the Danish cartoons. Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do.

Meanwhile, in Denmark, home of those hateful, racist, bigoted cartoonists (known elsewhere as people exercising their right to free speech), a group celebrating traditional midsummer festivities have burned Mohammed rather than the usual witch in effigy. All I can say is bravo! (I also hope that this is the beginning of a spinal-rehabilitation in Europe)

NYT Newsflash!

There's a war on! Tigerhawk dissects a bit from the Times (all the news that fits) in which they seem to have stumbled over jihadi ideology - someone let their blinders slip - but desperately try and play dumb, digging up some ivory tower-dwelling navel gazing type to liken jihad-related deaths and civilian deaths in Iraq. Or something. His style's far better than mine. Read away. The original Times piece, discussing (I kid you not) "jihadi etiquette" can be found here - it might as well be from the Onion.

(h/t: LGF - here's to hoping they're back up soon)

Heh - two follow-ups

First another Ramirez gem:




Secondly, this quote from some Progressive Loon/Edwards-Lover over at Kos suggests how far from comprehension the Left really is:
"The best way to reduce terrorism

as was so eloquently stated here by another poster who I don't recall....

Stop being a dick to the rest of the world.

The "terrorists" don't hate us because we're free or rich or white or because we drive nice cars or have nice houses or any other bullshit right wing talking points.

They hate us because of what we do around the world.

If America stops being a dick to much of the third world, very few people would be willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in hopes of taking a few of us with them."

So far from the truth as to be comic if ignorance were not so dangerous.