Please go to this link, and scroll down to page 7 of 18 in the English language translation. It is a document introduced into the Holy Land Foundation trial by the government. It is from the Muslim Brotherhood, dated to 1991, and it outlines their general strategy for infiltrating and undermining the United States through jihad. It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory ... but this is their own document!
Here, from page 7, is the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) on the responsibility of its members in North America:
The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States -- RD] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have no prepared ourselves for Jihad yet.. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wehrever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.
The strategy document goes on to say that the goal should be to bring all Islamic groups into the conspiracy, and to lead them from local Islamic centers, which serve as the "beehive" for the coordinated plan to undermine the United States and turn it into a Muslim state -- and ultimately to make it part of global Islamic government.
The document lists the "friends" of the Muslim Brotherhood, including: Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Youth of North America, the North American Islamic Trust and the Islamic Circle of North America. These are thoroughly mainstream American Muslim organizations.
I am telling you, if you haven't read the Chicago Tribune story from 2004 yet, the one about the extent of the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in America, by all means do. And read it with that conspiratorial paragraph from the Holy Land Foundation trial in mind. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is not a fantasy. This is most certainly not a joke. People have got to wake up and understand what we're dealing with here, and not be dissuaded by political correctness. You cannot rely on the news media to tell you -- the Dallas Morning News is the only media representative covering this trial, as far as I know, and in our story, this shocking document was referenced only in the last paragraph of today's story. I'm going to do my best to write about the documents released in this trial here on this blog, and in my News column. But really, you have to use the Internet to inform yourselves. It really is that important. These Muslim Brotherhood people do not mean well, and they are running the show for much of institutional Islam in this country.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"I'd say Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh should make the list, tout ensemble, and maybe even Damascus. As for Mecca, well, it would feel good, but..."
I'd consider bombing cities full of people as far worse than bombing religious sites. Kinda a side issue but I was wondering why did you put Baghdad as the first city on the list and why is there a list at all? If your going to nuke someone shouldn't it at least be a country that had something to do with the attack on America , not just some list of old grudges that can now be settled.
Who did that? Not me.
Rod Dreher wrote: "It seems to me, Rich, that if an American city is nuked by terrorists, we have no choice but to respond in kind -- or we invite more of the same. But any response is fraught with crippling complications. I'd say Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh should make the list, tout ensemble, and maybe even Damascus."
This reminds me of the old National Lampoon cartoon "Buy this magazine or we'll kill this dog." So if a few stateless terrorists nuke an American city, Rod Dreher would use the US nuclear arsenal to seek revenge on a major city full of innocent people who had nothing to do with the terrorists.
Call that what you want. It's still murderous and revengeful, two distnctly non-Christian valuess. But it's in line with bombing Bagdad to get revenge for 9-11.
Peter said:
"I'd consider bombing cities full of people as far worse than bombing religious sites."
Peter, I think you are right on the money. I find the destruction of pieces of a nation or region's cultural and historical heritage to be tragic and appalling.
But, I've often thought that I'd just as soon see old Jerusalem, for instance, razed to the ground if it would stop people from fighting about religion. Unfortunately, I don't think it would, since it is humans who invest inanimate objects (ie. the Western Wall or the Dome of the Rock) with the meaning that they have.
If people can fight over religious books, and if Shiite Muslims can be criticized as idolatrous because they use pebbles or small stones in their worship, I don't think getting rid of the holy shrines would change a thing. "The fault is not in our stars, but in our selves..." and so on.
Will, you're being dishonest in three ways:
1) I said just the other day on this site that I don't believe that anymore, and regret having once said it;
2) I did not call for the bombing of Mecca and/or Medina, but those other targets;
3) If calling for the bombing of cities that have Muslims in it constitutes advocating the murder of Muslims, that's stealing bases. Technically, yes, that's true, just as advocating bombing German cities in World War II was to unavoidably endorse killing Germans. The original implication when the charge was raised here was that I was motivated out of hatred for Muslims as Muslims; in fact, I was quite clearly responding out of an interest in strategic deterrence. It was still a bad call, for moral reasons, but it was not an Islamophobic one. You should know better.
"I was quite clearly responding out of an interest in strategic deterrence."
I'm sure it was quite clear to you, Rod, but to someone who lives in those cities you wanted to destroy, I'm sure it would make no difference if their cities and lives were destroyed out of strategic deterrence or pure malice. Nor would it really matter.
"It was still a bad call, for moral reasons, but it was not an Islamophobic one. You should know better." The real issue is that inflammatory rhetoric like yours is really no different from inflammatory rhetoric from a radical Islamist; the effects of those words live on past their utterance. A bad call is a bad call.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.