Where Did All The 'Islamic Terrorists' Go?

ISIS is often portrayed by the mainstream media (MSM) as the demonic face of “extremism.”  To our president, this organization is not Islamic.  For Obama, ISIS is composed of pathological individuals who are masquerading as Islamics, hence inappropriately called “Islamic extremists” or “Islamic radicals.”  Not only ISIS is to be exempted from the “Islamic” appellation, but so are other groups like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the growing number of “lone wolf” assassins.  Even Hamas, which is on our State Department terror list, is allowed to receive money, in complete contravention of U.S. law, as they “partner” with the Palestinian Authority.  Also, Iran, a country with which we do not have formal diplomatic relations because of their atrocities, is purposely not portrayed as governed by “radical Islamists” or “Islamic terrorists.”  Despite appearances, Islam is not at war with the West or with the kuffars (unbelievers).  Thus, the Obama administration has redefined “Islam,” ”terror,” “jihad,” and “extremism.”

Graeme Wood (The Atlantic, March 2015) sees the appeal of ISIS to Islamics as lying in its ability to control land, thus its growing power lies in the idea that it is reinstating the Caliphate, with all the apocalyptic implications of that reinstatement for Islamic eschatology.  The re-establishment of the Caliphate will precipitate incredible supernatural events that will lead to the final authority of Allah and of Islam over the entire world.  According to Wood, it is their control over land that gives ISIS credibility.

For the U.S. to continue to present ISIS as non-Islamic, we have to prevent their territorial expansion in order to dilute their claim to being the long-awaited Caliphate.  If they don’t have as much land, then they lose credibility, and they relapse to the Obama definition that they are just a ragtag JV bunch of demonic thugs.

Al-Qaeda, the organization founded by Osama bin Laden, has not been making headlines since ISIS began to be newsworthy.  Are al-Qaeda’s members terrorists?  Do they deserve to be called “Islamic jihadists”?  Well, yes and no.  According to the MSM’s sycophantic commentators and to our left-wing president, al-Qaeda’s dependence on committing atrocities partially disqualifies them from being Islamic.  Terror is portrayed as inconsistent with Islam, which is a “religion of peace.”  They are also disqualified because they do not govern any territory, but comprise a confederation of activist cells, killing but not governing.  True Islamists will govern as well as kill.  Thus, al-Qaeda is defined by a criminal pathology and lacks control over any land area, two characteristically non-Islamic traits according to our president.

In recent days, following the above line of reasoning,  the Taliban, whom we have been fighting for 13 years, are now to be referred to as “armed insurgents” and not as terrorists.  They are no longer armed men who gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden so he could attack us on 9/11; rather, they are dedicated Afghanis fighting against a corrupt government of “folks” installed by the diabolical George W. Bush.  Five of their leaders were recently released to Qatar for one year in exchange for one American soldier held in captivity.  After the year, they may go wherever they please.  Tired of violence, after their year-long sequestration in sunny-but-barren Qatar, they will undoubtedly move to Costa Rica and get peaceful jobs setting up beach chairs and umbrellas.  Their hearts actually long for jobs, so they will use their release as a window of opportunity to that end.

Then there is Iran.  Iran is Muslim, but of the Shia faction of Islam, which is repudiated by mainstream Sunni Muslims as well as by al-Qaeda and ISIS.  (It might be interesting for the reader to know that when Ramzi Youssef, a Sunni Muslim who planned and carried out the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, was on the run from the FBI and Interpol, he found time to kill a number of female Shi’ite pilgrims in Iran.)

Iran held 144 Americans hostage during Carter’s presidency, has arranged assassinations all over the world, regularly refers to the U.S. as “the Great Satan,” frequently threatens the total annihilation of Israel,  foments rallies in Tehran calling for the destruction of the USA, and is providing arms, missiles, and money to support Hamas, Hezbʼallah, and other terrorist organizations.

These behaviors hardly can be classified as “moderate,” but if one is Sunni, then Iran could be disqualified as Muslim.  For Sunnis, the Shi’ites are not truly obedient to Mohammed, hence are non-Islamic.  By this sort of inversion, accommodation with Iran, then, might not be seen as accommodating Islamic violence.

Thus, if al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, Iran, Yemen’s Houtis, Hamas, and Hezbʼallah are all disqualified as legitimate Islamic organizations, then how can any lone wolves or splinter teams of hit men claiming to be “jihadis” really be “Islamic terrorists”?  It’s a classic syllogism, with the conclusion being that there are no “Islamic terrorists.”

More remote groups have been dubbed “Islamic terrorists” as well, but that nomenclature even for them has to go, according to Obama, Rice, Powers, Kerry, Brennan, and Jarrett.  We have already been told that the savage, primitive Boko Haram (Nigeria) has “legitimate grievances.”  Likewise, Al-Shabaab (Somalia and Kenya) are bearing a burden of residual concerns dating back to the colonial period, and Abu Sayyef (Philippines) may have been denied national self-determination by an aggressive Filipino nationalism fostered by U.S. occupation from 1901 to 1947.  These poor people are the “wretched of the Earth” seeking justice at the hands of oppressors.  Hence, while they may be Islamic, they are not really terrorists.  Again, the term “Islamic terrorists” is inappropriate.

However, one dimension of experience is missing.  Obama’s deconstruction of the so-called facts on the ground is completely ahistorical.  Not only does he deny that all these killers draw their inspiration from the teachings of Islam, but he denies that Islam has been marked by its warlike and anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish fervor throughout most of its history.  Any student of history knows that a fantasy of world domination has been the vivid mindset of Islam for the better part of 1,400 years.  Aside from 9/11 where 16 out of 19 attackers were from “moderate” Saudi Arabia (don’t forget to bow obsequiously to the fine leaders of S.A.), we dare not forget that as recently as 1914-1918, the Ottoman Empire (Islamic religiously but ethnically Seljuk, not Arab) allied itself with the Central Powers in WWI, which alliance was intended to dramatically enhance Islamic power over the West.

Our government’s duplicity has replaced forthright policy and governance.  Let us then deconstruct the deconstructionists.  Our enemies abound as never before in the Middle East.  They all attend mosques.  They all pray five times a day to their God; they all read the same books.  We see the concerted Islamic hatred manifesting in a variety of scenarios.  War has been declared upon the West.

ISIS is often portrayed by the mainstream media (MSM) as the demonic face of “extremism.”  To our president, this organization is not Islamic.  For Obama, ISIS is composed of pathological individuals who are masquerading as Islamics, hence inappropriately called “Islamic extremists” or “Islamic radicals.”  Not only ISIS is to be exempted from the “Islamic” appellation, but so are other groups like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the growing number of “lone wolf” assassins.  Even Hamas, which is on our State Department terror list, is allowed to receive money, in complete contravention of U.S. law, as they “partner” with the Palestinian Authority.  Also, Iran, a country with which we do not have formal diplomatic relations because of their atrocities, is purposely not portrayed as governed by “radical Islamists” or “Islamic terrorists.”  Despite appearances, Islam is not at war with the West or with the kuffars (unbelievers).  Thus, the Obama administration has redefined “Islam,” ”terror,” “jihad,” and “extremism.”

Graeme Wood (The Atlantic, March 2015) sees the appeal of ISIS to Islamics as lying in its ability to control land, thus its growing power lies in the idea that it is reinstating the Caliphate, with all the apocalyptic implications of that reinstatement for Islamic eschatology.  The re-establishment of the Caliphate will precipitate incredible supernatural events that will lead to the final authority of Allah and of Islam over the entire world.  According to Wood, it is their control over land that gives ISIS credibility.

For the U.S. to continue to present ISIS as non-Islamic, we have to prevent their territorial expansion in order to dilute their claim to being the long-awaited Caliphate.  If they don’t have as much land, then they lose credibility, and they relapse to the Obama definition that they are just a ragtag JV bunch of demonic thugs.

Al-Qaeda, the organization founded by Osama bin Laden, has not been making headlines since ISIS began to be newsworthy.  Are al-Qaeda’s members terrorists?  Do they deserve to be called “Islamic jihadists”?  Well, yes and no.  According to the MSM’s sycophantic commentators and to our left-wing president, al-Qaeda’s dependence on committing atrocities partially disqualifies them from being Islamic.  Terror is portrayed as inconsistent with Islam, which is a “religion of peace.”  They are also disqualified because they do not govern any territory, but comprise a confederation of activist cells, killing but not governing.  True Islamists will govern as well as kill.  Thus, al-Qaeda is defined by a criminal pathology and lacks control over any land area, two characteristically non-Islamic traits according to our president.

In recent days, following the above line of reasoning,  the Taliban, whom we have been fighting for 13 years, are now to be referred to as “armed insurgents” and not as terrorists.  They are no longer armed men who gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden so he could attack us on 9/11; rather, they are dedicated Afghanis fighting against a corrupt government of “folks” installed by the diabolical George W. Bush.  Five of their leaders were recently released to Qatar for one year in exchange for one American soldier held in captivity.  After the year, they may go wherever they please.  Tired of violence, after their year-long sequestration in sunny-but-barren Qatar, they will undoubtedly move to Costa Rica and get peaceful jobs setting up beach chairs and umbrellas.  Their hearts actually long for jobs, so they will use their release as a window of opportunity to that end.

Then there is Iran.  Iran is Muslim, but of the Shia faction of Islam, which is repudiated by mainstream Sunni Muslims as well as by al-Qaeda and ISIS.  (It might be interesting for the reader to know that when Ramzi Youssef, a Sunni Muslim who planned and carried out the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, was on the run from the FBI and Interpol, he found time to kill a number of female Shi’ite pilgrims in Iran.)

Iran held 144 Americans hostage during Carter’s presidency, has arranged assassinations all over the world, regularly refers to the U.S. as “the Great Satan,” frequently threatens the total annihilation of Israel,  foments rallies in Tehran calling for the destruction of the USA, and is providing arms, missiles, and money to support Hamas, Hezbʼallah, and other terrorist organizations.

These behaviors hardly can be classified as “moderate,” but if one is Sunni, then Iran could be disqualified as Muslim.  For Sunnis, the Shi’ites are not truly obedient to Mohammed, hence are non-Islamic.  By this sort of inversion, accommodation with Iran, then, might not be seen as accommodating Islamic violence.

Thus, if al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, Iran, Yemen’s Houtis, Hamas, and Hezbʼallah are all disqualified as legitimate Islamic organizations, then how can any lone wolves or splinter teams of hit men claiming to be “jihadis” really be “Islamic terrorists”?  It’s a classic syllogism, with the conclusion being that there are no “Islamic terrorists.”

More remote groups have been dubbed “Islamic terrorists” as well, but that nomenclature even for them has to go, according to Obama, Rice, Powers, Kerry, Brennan, and Jarrett.  We have already been told that the savage, primitive Boko Haram (Nigeria) has “legitimate grievances.”  Likewise, Al-Shabaab (Somalia and Kenya) are bearing a burden of residual concerns dating back to the colonial period, and Abu Sayyef (Philippines) may have been denied national self-determination by an aggressive Filipino nationalism fostered by U.S. occupation from 1901 to 1947.  These poor people are the “wretched of the Earth” seeking justice at the hands of oppressors.  Hence, while they may be Islamic, they are not really terrorists.  Again, the term “Islamic terrorists” is inappropriate.

However, one dimension of experience is missing.  Obama’s deconstruction of the so-called facts on the ground is completely ahistorical.  Not only does he deny that all these killers draw their inspiration from the teachings of Islam, but he denies that Islam has been marked by its warlike and anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish fervor throughout most of its history.  Any student of history knows that a fantasy of world domination has been the vivid mindset of Islam for the better part of 1,400 years.  Aside from 9/11 where 16 out of 19 attackers were from “moderate” Saudi Arabia (don’t forget to bow obsequiously to the fine leaders of S.A.), we dare not forget that as recently as 1914-1918, the Ottoman Empire (Islamic religiously but ethnically Seljuk, not Arab) allied itself with the Central Powers in WWI, which alliance was intended to dramatically enhance Islamic power over the West.

Our government’s duplicity has replaced forthright policy and governance.  Let us then deconstruct the deconstructionists.  Our enemies abound as never before in the Middle East.  They all attend mosques.  They all pray five times a day to their God; they all read the same books.  We see the concerted Islamic hatred manifesting in a variety of scenarios.  War has been declared upon the West.