Why We are Losing the War against Encroaching Islam and Terrorism

Osama bin Laden is dead, but his battle plan is on its course to victory -- thanks to the misguided war strategy undertaken by the non-Muslim world...

---

The death of Usama Bin Laden (UBL) at the hands of U.S. Navy Seals has caused jubilation to many people. Although UBL could not be brought to justice, justice was appropriately brought to him. A man, who lived by violence and encouraged others to do so, should not complain that he himself suffered a violent death.

As the state of the battle against Islamic resurgence stands, this is where we are heading.

However, I fear that UBL’s death may have given us, non-Muslims, a false sense of victory in the war on Islamic terror, when we are actually losing the war. Such a statement will no doubt come as a surprise to many, and I suspect, they will read this and go through a recitation in their mind of the many victories against the terrorists on the battlefield and in the form of numerous foiled terrorist plots as an internal argument against my opinion.

However, this war is unlike most wars. It has already raged far longer than either WWI or WWII with no end in sight; if at all, the end is favorable to none other than devout Muslims with a solid understanding of and belief in the actual tenets of Islam.

The reason the non-Muslim world, led by the United States, is losing this war, is the characterization that we are not at war with Islam, the ideology that is actually driving the conflict. And that ideology, the religion of Islam, is expanding even in the West in an increasingly radicalized form.

Equally important: this is a long-term war of attrition, and Islamists are fighting an asymmetrical war, which they can not only maintain, but also, in all probability, will be able to expand. Conversely, the United States and its allies are fighting, even living, on borrowed money that will eventually bring these nations, particularly the U.S. to a state, where it will no longer be able to sustain the battle. This is especially true when one considers -- as one rightfully must -- that the United State’s ability to successfully fight the war long-term is contingent upon its financial well-being. Western Civilization may well be brought to its knees as spending on the war on terror and social programs deplete financial capability of the U.S. and its allies, when that the global economy is tied to the U.S. economy in myriad ways.

The reason non-Muslims are losing the war is that, despite the massive expenditures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and in homeland security programs, all that the U.S. is accomplishing is curbing the Islamists’ success in the short term, but Islam, the driving force behind this battle, itself continues to expand and spread its influence. More important, still, is the fact that the entire Islamic World and Muslim populations everywhere are going through an Islamization process, wherein Muslims are becoming increasingly fundamentalist in nature. Islam continues its ominous advance in Europe and the United States, seemingly unfazed by the war on terror, made possible not only because it has been left alone to advance, but also with the persistent connivance and support of both conservative and liberal governments. Governments in the West, particularly in Europe, and to somewhat lesser extent in North America and Australia, have brought in Muslim immigrants into their societies without pragmatic considerations. On one hand, it has enabled Muslims, most of whom come with a islamization agenda, to literally colonize parts of Western nations; on the other, this adds economic burden, already overburdened by extravagant social programs, and increases unemployment and drives down working wages as labor supply expands at a faster pace than the economy.

To understand why the war is being lost, it is also crucially important to understand the difference between what fundamentalist Muslims are seeking to achieve and what non-Muslims seek to achieve in this conflict. Fundamentalist Muslims seek absolute victory such that Islamic rule and law will reign everywhere. They realize that once Sharia law is imposed, all other religions and ideologies will fade over time. Conversely, non-Muslims, at best, seek only to stop the acts of Islamic violence, leaving Islamization free to advance. This means that Islam will gradually win the struggle eventually -- even if the violent approach fails -- by stealth Islamization, and non-Muslims won’t be able to do anything since they do not seek actual victory. This war is going on as if a sporting event, which will be played until one of the teams win. This, in all likelihood, would go on for a very long time; indeed, the battle between Muslims and non-Muslims has raged for centuries, from the very inception of Islam to be precise. And the eventual end-result is quite predictable. Non-Muslims are having and will have some short-term advantages, but those advantages will be squandered on an unsustainable war strategy as has been undertaken.

Non-Muslim countries are much more technologically advanced, have far better military capabilities, and have much stronger, more diverse economies even in the worst of times than Islamic nations. There is no question that the U.S. and its allies have seize certain territories deemed important to secure, and that many terrorists and terror supporters have been killed. Numerous Muslim terror-plots have also been disrupted. But measures put in place to achieve these successes cannot be sustained in the long-term, and these measures itself helps little to resolve the conflict in the long-term. The manner in which the war has been characterized, and the resulting method by which it is being fought, is so expensive that such a financial draining defence strategy is unsustainable in the long-term.

Is it possible to stop an ant-infestation by going after individual ants as they come of the ant-hill, while leaving the nest intact? Metaphorically, that is exactly how the war against Islamic terror is being fought. Islamic doctrine is the nest that breeds Islamic terror. Other factors play a role, but make no mistake about it that Islamic doctrine is the central motivating factor. However, Western nations ignorantly perceive Islam as a welcome addition to the multicultural mix, and see danger only in violent actions of Muslims, wilfully disregarding the fact that those violent actions are simply an effort to implement the Islamic doctrine of Jihad. Could you imagine allowing Nazis to immigrate during the WWII and only perceiving them as a threat when they acted upon their ideology?

When one comprehends the error in tactics, one quickly realizes that the massive expenditures abroad -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere -- are destabilizing the United States and its allies financially with little or no long-term benefit. For example, the United States provides major bulk of the forces and money to fight the Taliban, but how much longer it can afford to do so remains to be seen. Simple mathematics suggests that a nation of 310 million people, already burdened with a debt of over $14 trillions, cannot afford to police the world indefinitely. If the United States cannot maintain its financial integrity, it cannot maintain its security. It follows that spending vast sums of borrowed money to fight a war of indefinite attrition, which is unwinnable thanks to the strategy undertaken -- it not only wastes American lives, but also hurts its long-term national security, because as America’s debt level rises, her ability to resist Islam and other threats declines. Viewed in the proper light, whatever successes achieved in the war on terror so far will be nothing but a Pyrrhic victory.

Therefore, the manner in which Western nations are resisting Islam’s modern resurgence is playing into UBL’s strategy. UBL is dead, but he died knowing that his strategy has been successful and that the U.S. is well on its way to defeat. On November 01, 2004, the Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a transcript of a videotape from UBL, wherein he acknowledged that his goal is to force America into bankruptcy as he stated: "we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah."

Given UBL’s background and experience in business, undertaking an approach to economically drain America was the only prudent strategy he possible could successfully pursue. Given the current state of the American economy, the rate at which it is accruing more debt, as well as the myriad of other economic woes such as federal and state liability for various unfunded social programs and pension obligations, you can be sure that UBL died with the knowledge that Islam is well on its way to victory. Even as the “war” raged, Muslims continue to settle in the West in large numbers. The influence of Islam continues to grow in the U.S. and Europe. Muslims are winning elections to high offices and are being appointed judges. Islam’s coming victory is being facilitated by Constitutions of the Western nations. The First Amendment Freedom of Speech and Religion rights of the U.S. Constitution, for example, allows unperturbed spread of a violent, supremacist, misogynist, alien ideology, which will extinguish the very First Amendment Freedoms itself.

It is high time that the U.S. withdraws from intervention in the Islamic World. However, I am not a strict isolationist. The U.S. should carefully choose interventions that have high probably of advancing peace in the world. For example, American and allied intervention against Nazi Germany made sense. And we must not forget that in that conflict, Americans sought to, and did, destroy the Nazi ideology as a significant influence and power. Islamic ideology is more malevolent than the Nazi ideology. Islam, like Nazism, is a militaristic and supremacist ideology, which is just as full of hatred and violence toward Jews and also of Christians, and furthermore seeks annihilation of the polytheists. If America and its allies were fighting to discredit and contain Islam, the true enemy, any financial sacrifice would have been worth it, because one could be assured that the West were fighting to build a better future for humanity.

Unfortunately, the West is not only failing to fight the ideology of Islam, but the issue of Islam has, much to my surprise, become a conservatives versus liberal-leftists political agenda, even though the tenets of Islam are at odds with the values held by most Western political ideologies.

Given the hopeless state in which the West find itself in the battle against Islamic challenge, the best strategy for them now may well be to withdraw from the Islamic world, and try to contain Islam outside its boundaries. While this is the best strategy to undertake at this time, but I am also aware that it may be impossible to implement when large number of Muslims are already within the West’s borders. And Muslim growth rate much higher than that amongst non-Muslims, thanks primarily to unrestrained breeding amongst Muslims -- Islam’s encroachment and expanding influence on the Western culture and polity is all set to become unbeatable. And as Western nations become more and more financially insolvent -- due, at least in part, to the misguided wars of attrition in Afghanistan as well as to Muslim immigration, and unsustainable social programs -- their ability to resist Islam will decrease and Islam will advance at an even greater pace. Increase in Muslim population in the West will certainly lead to further assorted internal problems within non-Muslim nations, like those we witness happening in the Islamic world.

In conclusion, in the battle against Islamic resurgence, the non-Muslim world stands in a losing state, with little hope of a reversal.

Don't blame the West

The 'root causes' of Islamist terrorism do not lie in poverty or western imperialism, but an age old conflict between reason and revelation

During the last decade of Islamist terrorism, numerous commentators, particularly those on the left, have adopted a materialist approach to explain why some Muslims want to slaughter guests at hotels in Mumbai or detonate bombs at Christmas festivals in Sweden.

Terrorism, they argue, is rooted in poverty, frustration over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and memories of western imperialism. In other words, so the argument goes, the West itself is to blame for terrorism. If only the West would apologize, make reparations, abandon Israel, leave the Middle East and Afghanistan, all would be well. Or at least that's where the root-cause crowd's assumptions logically lead.

The problem with this materialist view of terrorism is that it largely misses the spiritual motivations that inform Islamist geo-politics. As political theorist Barry Cooper argues in his book, New Political Religions, or, An Analysis of Modern Terrorism, the Islamists, like the Nazis and Communists, are motivated more by a "disease of the spirit" than materialist aspirations. "When ordinary human beings see themselves as specially chosen by God, or even as gods themselves, they are not necessarily psychopaths, but they most definitely are spiritually disordered."

Cooper draws on Eric Voegelin, a 20th-century political philosopher who coined the term "pneumopathology" to account for the spiritual diseases of the modern world. Voegelin argued that some people -- politicians, intellectuals, journalists, for example -- prefer to see the world as a projection of their desires rather than comprehend its reality. Such fabulists effectively live in what Voegelin called a "second-order reality." If they acquire power they all-too-often pursue extreme measures -- genocide, gulags, crashing airplanes into buildings -- to transform the world to suit their fantasies of perfection.

In the case of the Islamists, they imagine Islam spreading across the globe and the establishment of a worldwide caliphate based on shariah law. They see themselves empowered by Allah to bring about this new world order by destroying a civilization they regard as spiritually empty. Thus, Islamism constitutes a political religion of apocalyptic proportions.

You don't have to look far to find hints of such second-order thinking. The New York Hall of Science is currently staging an exhibit titled "1001 Inventions" that purports to show that Islam enjoyed a Golden Age of scientific and intellectual accomplishment when Europe was wallowing in the Dark Ages. According to a New York Times reviewer, the exhibition's promoters claim Islam's cultural glories were later "misappropriated" by the West.

It is true that, between the seventh and 10th centuries, Islamic culture spread across North Africa and the Middle East -- prompting the building of libraries, universities and cities where science and philosophy were prized. Scholars, such as al-Zahrawi and al-Haytham, made significant contributions to medicine and physics. Philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Farabi absorbed Aristotle and Plato and, like the Greeks, tried to apply reason to the problems of Muslim society. But to deny that Muslim thinkers borrowed heavily from other cultures -- evidence, again, of second-ordering thinking -- is a distortion of historical reality. As the Times' reviewer puts it: "Major cultures of the first millennium (China, India, Byzantium) are mentioned only to affirm the weightier significance of Muslim contributions."

But then Islam's Golden Age was golden only in comparison to the endarkenment that descended on Western Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century. According to some historians, the rise of Islam in the seventh century exacerbated Europe's "Dark Age." "Islam, far from being a force for enlightenment in the so-called Dark Age, was actually responsible for the destruction of the literate and urban civilization that we now call Classical," says John J. O'Neill, the author of Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization. The Muslim conquests of the Christian lands of the Middle East and North Africa in the seventh and eighth centuries were, he says, made much easier by the breakdown in law and order throughout the Mediterranean as the borders of the Roman imperium receded. In this regard, the "1001 Inventions" exhibition is, perhaps, being disingenuous.

Worse, though, says the reviewer, is the exhibition's failure to account for the "long eclipse" of Islamic culture. Indeed, one of history's much-debated puzzles is why the Muslim world stagnated after its Golden Age, why the spirit of scientific inquiry and philosophical debate by and large faded from Islamic culture.

Blame the imams. In the 11th century, Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, a brilliant if tormented theologian, published The Incoherence of the Philosophers, effectively bringing to conclusion centuries of debate in the Muslim world about the primacy of reason versus that of revelation. Reason makes us question things, makes us doubtful and uncertain, al-Ghazali argued. He attacked philosophers who thought that humans could know the world by means of rational thought. Reason, he said, leads to despair. Only divine revelation, the word of God as revealed in the Koran, provides certain knowledge of how best to live. Human reason must submit to Allah's will.

A century later, another Muslim philosopher challenged al-Ghazali's views. In The Incoherence of the Incoherence, Ibn Rushd -- better known in the West as Averroes -- argued that reason was God's gift to mankind and was to be used for the betterment of society. Ignorant theologians should not intrude on areas they don't understand. It was too late. The imams carried the day. Averroes' books were burned and he fled into exile. The voice of reason fell silent in courts of the caliphs and Muslim culture gradually ossified.

Some scholars argue that Islamist terrorism can be traced to this eclipse of reason. Unlike Christianity, which eventually found a way to balance the claims of Athens and Jerusalem, leaving it open to the scientific reasoning that re-emerged in the Renaissance and Enlightenment, Islam has never reconciled reason and revelation. This unwillingness to reconcile the human and the divine fosters the kind of spiritual pathologies that give birth to terrorism.

"Islamism is grounded in a spiritual pathology based upon a theological deformation that has produced a dysfunctional culture," argues political scientist Robert Reilly in a newly published book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. Mainstream Sunni Islam, which comprises the majority of the faithful in the Muslim world, "has shut the door to reality in a profound way." This, says Reilly, is the consequence of Islam's long suppression of reason in favour of religious dogmatism.

Reilly refers to the abandonment of scientific thinking as the "Dehellenization" of Islam. Islam was eventually dominated by those who thought like al-Ghazali. They held that the Koran contained Allah's direct speech. And, because Allah's will and action is unlimited, the Koran, as his eternal word, must apply to all times and places. There is no need to look elsewhere in responding to the human condition, regardless of changing circumstances. Since Allah is the first cause of everything, there is no need to look for secondary causes; that is to say, no need to use reason to understand nature's laws, and, therefore, no need for science.

Such a mindset, Reilly argues, forgoes many attributes Westerners regard as essential to the modern mind, particularly philosophical skepticism and scientific reasoning. "If one lives in a society that ascribes everything to first causes, one is not going to look around the world and try to figure out how it works or how to improve it," he writes. "The Middle East is poor because of a dysfunctional culture based upon a deformed theology, and unless it can be reformed at that level, economic engineering or the development of constitutional political order will not succeed."

Other political theorists argue that democracy cannot establish deep roots in a culture where human reason is not paramount because, in Barry Cooper's words, "the prerequisite of democracy is the respectability of reason." But without respect for reason there can be no notion of discovering natural laws. And without natural law, says Cooper, "there can be no constitutional political order by which human beings, using reason, create laws to govern themselves and act freely."

Such views, if valid, augur ill for the presence of Islam within the secular West. If radical Islam is, as Reilly contends, rooted in the suppression of reason, it is hard to see how even moderate Muslims can achieve a deep and wholesome attachment to western societies and their values. How can genuinely devout Muslims identify wholeheartedly with a modern secular society that denies the efficacy of their faith? And if they can't, what are they going to do about it?

The Islamists' answer, obviously, is that no accommodation is possible. Hence, they ultimately seek the transformation of the West to accommodate Islam. Chandra Muzaffar, a widely respected Malaysian Islamic scholar, writing in a 2006 book, The New Voices of Islam, captures this spiritual aspiration: "Islam and the post-Enlightenment secular West are diametrically opposed to one another.

Muslims will then realize that unless they transform the secular world of the West, that vision of justice embodied in the Koran will never become a reality." The challenge for Islamists, obviously, is whether they can achieve that transformation better through demographic domination over the next few decades or through violence.

The challenge for Westerners, perhaps not so obviously, is whether they will awaken in time from their multicultural slumbers to protect their cultural heritage and avoid, possibly, a new dark age.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/blame+West/4050815/story.html#ixzz1A2JRjOym

Islamic Terrorism and Public Fear

Dr. Babu Suseelan

Our lifestyle has changed drastically to accommodate fear producing, life threatening criminal culture of Jihadis during the past 20 years. We experience deadly Jihadi terrorism in New York, in the Middle East, London, Paris, Mumbai and Madrid. Last week several innocent Hindus, Christians, and Kafirs were murdered in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Indias and Bangladesh. The Islamic criminals and Jihadi terrorists are terrorizing innocent citizens in every democcratic nations in every nook, cranny, peak and valley. And why not? Innocent people are being robbed, raped, assaulted, murdered, battered, stabbed and maimed and the average arrest clearance record of these Jihadi criminals by Islamic government is shameful.

Gone are the days when our culture, and liberal tradition which, was a trademark of the great democratic nations. The social problem, fear and anxiety caused by Jihadists and Muslim criminals is a fallout tragedy of our compromising attitude, indifference, apathy and passive lifestyle.

Marxist-phony-liberal intellectuals are in a hurry to accuse infidels suffering from Phobia.

Yes, we are afraid of Jihadi-terrorists and Muslims with apocalyptic criminal ideology. Fear is natural, warranted and necessary for human survival from violence, dangerous animals and calamities. Phobia is an unnatural and irrational fear. Anxiety is unnecessary anticipated worry about the unknown.

Because of the criminal culture of Jihadis, we have become a nation that is wary of Jihadis next door. We are afraid to associate with their apocalyptic culture. Our fear is warranted.

The public has natural, rational genuine fear of Islamists hiding in our communities with hidden agendas. Muslims in general are phobic and paranoiac towards Kafirs. Islamic irrational paranoia and phobia are projected skillfully on to infidels by Jihadis.

Fear created by Jihadis through terrorism and violence is clear and alarming. jihadi terrorist acts and their scare mongering preachers can electrify infidels with fear. There is a logical reason for our fear of jihadis living next door. our fear and paranoia cannot easily be undone unless Muslims are willing to reform Islam and change their fear producing Jihadi terrorism. Fear of Islam is nothing new.It is thousands of years old. Islam promotes fear, and deviant amplifying jihadi communities around the world repeats and repeats fear producing heinous crimes. Recently jihadis have created a self-sustaining cycle of fear because of their irrationality and paranoia of infidels.

To protect our life, limbs and liberty from jihadi terrorists, from the petty sociopath leaders of Islamic terrorist groups who violate our lives, and those mullahs who amplify our fears, it is natural and rational to express our fear against Islamists living in our communities.

jihadis want psychologically devastate us and our children. Infidels are venerable, as individuals and as a population. Those who are in denial, ignorant or indifferent, will deny their fear of Jihadis.

Throughout history, non-Muslims have been intrigued by the deviant behavior of Muslims. Islam wants to establish Dar-ul-Islam around the world and want to make non-Muslims as Dhimmis. Violence and terrorism are justified and used as an Islamic legitimate ways to conquer infidel lands and subdue non-Muslims and collect Jaziiya (religious Tax) from those who refuse to convert to Islam. The Islamic doctrine indoctrinates Muslims at an early age that infidels are evil and they should be either converted or slaughtered in the name of Allah. The purpose of Muslims is to correct this evil infidels and strive toward Dar-ul-Islam. Since Muslims used Allah’s dictates in the Koran as the criteria for judging others, infidels who did not conform to Islamic standards was considered “bad”.

For many centuries this concept was part of Islamic dogma and so was given additional authority by Islamic religious leaders and rulers. Even today the Islamic principle of hatred against kafirs and infidels are bad are accepted by Muslims in all walks of life, including Islamic professionals.

The concept that non-Muslims are evil make Muslims consider the world as a battle ground for Dar-ul Islam against Dar-ul-Harb. Jihadis constantly resort to violence, terrorism, homicide bombing and all destructive means for supremacy over infidels.

The concept of duality in Islam can be found deeply embedded in Islamic tradition. It exists in the Koran, Hadith and Sura. If we fail to understand this Islamic mindset, we are doomed to eventual defeat against Islamic violence and Jihadi terrorism. Jihadis hiding in our communities must be regarded with suspicion. Law abiding non-Muslim citizens and law enforcement personnel must always be on guard for signs of violent Jihadi activity and ready to head of such tendencies as they appear.

The methods required to deal with such perverse Islamic tendencies must be powerful ones. Saving citizens from Jihadi terrorism calls for vigorous measures.

Every time we bargain with our deadly criminals, we are compromising with our enemies, every time we show leniency we are compromising with terrorists. Our corrupt political leaders and phony intellectuals appease the masses with political rhetoric and empty slogans year after year, but criminals march ahead with their murder mayhem and the causalities increase.

Jihad, Inc.

As we struggle to come to terms with the Fort Hood massacre, the first thing to do — if we want to prevent such terrorism from becoming a regular event — is to understand why it happened and who or what is to blame for it. Despite the mainstream media’s efforts to present Fort Hood as an unfortunate episode of random violence — a crazed gunman just happened to shout “Allahu akbar!” — there was nothing random about it. Rather, it was the preordained, indeed inevitable, outcome of the cancerous growth of radical Islam in America. Nor is Major Hasan’s transformation into a jihadist willing to murder his fellow citizens an isolated case. In the last six months alone, at least 20 homegrown Muslim extremists were arrested by the FBI for planning terrorist attacks in Colorado, Detroit, New York City, Dallas, and Newburgh, N.Y. Like Major Hasan, who was radicalized in Islamist mosques in Falls Church, Va., and Silver Spring, Md., these American Muslims embraced terrorism upon being radicalized by American imams and mosques.

So we must begin by trying to understand what radical Islam is, what it’s not, and how it turns American-born Muslims into jihadist time bombs. The problem is not simply that in radical Islam this country faces a well-entrenched domestic enemy, but that the current administration, like the three that preceded it, has not shown any sign of understanding this reality, let alone a willingness to confront it.

Simply put, radical Islam, though operating under the guise of religion and claiming to work in religion’s behalf, is less a religious movement than a revolutionary ideology akin to 20th-century totalitarian creeds like Nazism and Communism. It seeks religious legitimacy by embracing violent, reactionary, and obscurantist sharia doctrine — along with extremist interpretations of Islam, such as Wahhabism and Salafism — but it is quintessentially totalitarian in that it denies the legitimacy of Western civilization and the secular democratic order; these it considers to be jahiliyya — “barbarism” — in the words of the patron saint of Islamism, Sayyid Qutb. What is new in the Islamists’ presentation of the West as the implacable enemy of Islam is the framing of Islam’s conflict with it in apocalyptic, Manichean terms. The result is the demonization of the West as a subhuman civilization that must be destroyed if Islam is to survive and triumph. This demonization is coupled with the outright rejection of the possibility of peaceful coexistence between Islam and any other religion or ideology in the long term. Here it is important to note that radical Islam sees itself as the perfect, God-ordained fusion of state and religion (din wa dawla) and, therefore, non-religious doctrines such as nationalism, socialism, and capitalism are seen as threats equal to those presented by other religions.

Like its erstwhile totalitarian confreres, radical Islam advocates a millenarian utopia — to take the form, in this case, of worldwide Muslim rule by the “Caliphate.” Interestingly, the concept of the Caliphate is nowhere to be found in either the Koran or the Sunna; it bears more resemblance to the perfected societies dreamed of by Western dictators. Another concept borrowed by Islamism from European totalitarianism is the Leninist doctrine of the vanguard party. Much like Lenin vis-à-vis the proletariat, Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966), who first applied Lenin’s vanguard theory to radical Islam, did not put much stock in the revolutionary potential of the Muslim masses. He believed that a small core of professional Islamic revolutionaries was essential to the success of the Islamist movement. Qutb’s Islamist-vanguard theory, as further developed by today’s leading Islamist ideologue, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is a key to understanding the role of Muslim Brotherhood activists and affiliated organizations in making radical Islam the dominant idiom of the Muslim establishment in America.

And it is impossible to grasp Islamist ideology without understanding that Islamic extremists consider Muslims who do not share their radical views no less the enemy than the infidels. The practice of declaring a practicing Muslim who does not agree with you an apostate (takfir) was first propounded by the founder of Wahhabism, Abd al-Wahhab, in the 18th century, but it was Sayyid Qutb who developed the theory of a “Muslim jahiliyya” and proclaimed that Muslim rulers and societies that have not imposed sharia rule are apostates to be treated accordingly. This not only stands the Koran on its head but is largely responsible for the fact that the vast majority of the victims of Islamic violence in the past decades have been other Muslims — a fact whose continuing truth is lamentably demonstrated, on a daily basis, by the Taliban.

Islamists believe that to achieve their objectives they must first destroy Western civilization — beginning with the United States, its most powerful protector. This does not mean that violence is always the first resort. Violence is invariably seen as an essential instrument in the Islamist arsenal, but, in the current state of Islamic weakness and American strength, the preferred tactics are proselytism, indoctrination, infiltration, and undermining American society from within. Islamists seek to destroy the West “with their [i.e., the West’s] own hands,” as one Muslim Brotherhood document put it — which is to say, by exploiting the rights and freedoms our democratic system guarantees.

It is important to keep in mind that while terrorism is the inevitable outcome of Islamic extremism in America, it is not the primary objective — or even a very important objective — of the organized Islamist networks insinuated into our society. Terrorism takes place, and will continue to take place, because individuals who have been indoctrinated by radical imams to hate their country and compatriots as the very incarnation of evil will often take things into their own hands. But for the leaders and ideologues of radical Islam, domestic terrorism could prove tactically counterproductive to the achievement of their larger objectives; they do not, as rule, encourage it explicitly.

This is not to say that leading U.S. Islamists and Islamist organizations disapprove of violence or suicide terrorism at all. On the contrary, most of them wholeheartedly support virtually all overseas terrorist groups, such as Hamas and the Taliban, both morally and financially, as testified to by the large number of American Islamists already sitting in jail. To judge the role of radical Islam in America on the basis of whether it is involved in direct support for domestic terrorism is to dramatically underestimate a vastly greater threat this fifth column represents to our security. Terrorism is only a symptom of the underlying malignancy of Islamic extremism, and to deal with it while ignoring the malignancy is akin to fighting cancer by alleviating the pain it causes.

Armed with their radical ideology and amply endowed with Saudi funds, committed cadres of professional revolutionaries from the Muslim Brotherhood descended on America in the early 1960s and, as they did throughout the West, began to build an infrastructure for radical Islam, starting with the Muslim Students Association (MSA) in 1963. In short order, a great number of Islamist organizations, professional associations, youth groups, publishing houses, and charities were spun off from this “student” association, allowing it to boast that, under its auspices, “nearly every other major Muslim organization (in America) was formed.” Their formation was anything but haphazard. They were conceived as integral parts of a larger network designed to serve a clearly defined purpose. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), for example, was envisioned as an umbrella organization that would become the “nucleus for the Islamic Movement in North America.” The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) was vested with control of Wahhabi-funded institutions, while the Islamic Circle of North America was designed to be the primary outreach agency for Subcontinental Muslims, with Urdu its official language.

The network has expanded greatly since then, with the MSA alone boasting 1,000 chapters in North America. ISNA and NAIT directly control many hundreds of mosques. Each of these groups is part of the same radical-Islamic construct. What all have in common, apart from their common roots and the ideology they share, is their persistent claim to be independent and mainstream representatives of American Muslims, a claim that is all too often accepted uncritically by government institutions and even law-enforcement agencies. And while all these groups routinely deny having sympathy for or ties to radical Islam, they don’t go out of their way to hide their true beliefs or their intimate ties to other members of the network. This is evident in their identical policy positions, their close and synergistic cooperation, and their vehement opposition to all U.S. policies seen as detrimental to Islamist objectives. It is especially evident in the network of interlocking directorships that links their close-knit leaders (or “vanguard,” in Qutb’s terms) — a network that leaves no doubt that they are indeed one and the same organization.

They also share a source of funding. It is impossible to understand the explosive growth of these radical networks — in both the U.S. and Europe, at a time when Muslim populations were still relatively small — without considering the role of Saudi money. Flush with cash after the 1973 oil embargo, which resulted in a nearly hundredfold increase in the kingdom’s oil revenues over the following ten years, the Saudis dramatically boosted their financial support for radical Islam worldwide, especially in the West. According to Saudi government figures, Riyadh provided $48 billion to support Islamic activities abroad between 1975 and 1987, or some $4 billion per annum. All in all, these figures show that in the period between 1973 and 2002, Saudi Arabia spent more than $80 billion to promote Islamic activities in the non-Muslim world alone. This truly colossal sum has built a huge network of radical Wahhabi-controlled institutions, including more than 1,500 mosques, 150 Islamic centers, 202 Muslim colleges, and 2,000 Islamic schools — all of these in non-Muslim countries. As a result, there is hardly a city of any size in America or Europe today that does not have a Saudi-controlled institution preaching extremism and spewing hatred against Western civilization, directly or indirectly advocating its destruction.

In practical terms, the Islamist networks in America have focused their efforts on several areas and produced results that, taken together, account for much of the radicalization of American Islam over the last three decades. These efforts included imposing their ideology on American Islam, taking over moderate Muslim institutions, radicalizing mainstream believers, indoctrinating the young, aggressively proselytizing among the infidels, infiltrating government institutions and the political establishment, and organizing support for extremist causes and jihad overseas.

In many of these areas, the Islamists have been hugely successful. On the issue of ideological penetration, Hudson Institute scholars Nina Shea and Paul Marshall have documented the universal spread of Wahhabi/Salafist ideology and literature in American mosques. Here are a few examples of the kind of religious wisdom they found disseminated:

— “Democracy is an evil system” and the “very embodiment of unbelief,” so Muslims must reject it.

— Interfaith dialogue is a “sinful call” because it “breaks down the wall of resentment between Muslims and unbelievers.”

—Freedom of religion is forbidden because “it allows denial of Islam.” Accepting any religion other than Islam makes you “an apostate, and you should be killed because you have denied the Koran.”

—“Believers must hate [the infidels] for their religion . . . and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”

—“Whoever believes that Christians and Jews worship God is an infidel.”

—“Innovative” imams are “heretics and their prayers are invalid.”

—“Muslims must be protected from the barbarian culture of Europe.”

Indoctrination (known as tarbiya) in Islamist ideology has been a main concern of radical groups. They seek to spread their ideas across all levels of Muslim society, with a special emphasis on children and youth. Today, unbeknownst to the vast majority of Americans, there are schools in the United States that start their morning Pledge of Allegiance with “I pledge allegiance to Allah and his Prophet.”

The proselytistic effort to convert the infidels to Islam, known as dawah in Islamic jargon, is an important enterprise for the radical networks, and special dawah departments exist in virtually all Islamist organizations. Proselytizing campaigns are far from random; some social groups are deemed more responsive to the Islamist message than others and accordingly subjected to special attention. They tend to be groups seen as aggrieved and alienated from society, such as minorities and prison inmates. Black Americans became an early focus and were considered especially promising. Two subgroups of the black population were targeted in particular: those in the penitentiary system, and members of the Nation of Islam. Reliable figures about the success of this campaign are difficult to obtain, but circumstantial evidence seems to point to significant progress of dawah efforts among blacks. Prison officials, for instance, estimated in the mid-1990s that between 10 and 20 percent of the nation’s 1.5 million inmates — who are disproportionately black — identified themselves as Muslims, and some 30,000 black Americans were reported to convert to Islam in prison every year.

Last and most disturbing, radical Islam has without a doubt made significant inroads in its quest to infiltrate our government and institutions. Consider the case of Abdurahman Alamoudi, which is typical of the Islamist modus operandi. In October 2004 he was sentenced to 23 years in prison for terrorism-related activities, and he is currently in a federal penitentiary. Prior to that, he had been a kingpin of the Islamist network: He was a top official in a dozen major Islamist organizations and in five charities suspected of funding terrorism. Despite that, he evidently enjoyed unimpeded access to the White House under Presidents Clinton and Bush (43). He also served as a State Department “goodwill ambassador” in the Middle East and as a U.S. Information Agency speaker abroad. Most important, he founded an organization called the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council and established it as the exclusive authority for endorsing Muslim chaplains in all branches of the U.S. armed forces, enabling it to place extremists in the military virtually at will.

It was within this vast subversive enterprise that Major Hasan, like thousands of others, became radicalized — long before the war in Iraq came along. It is not difficult to trace his transformation into a mass murderer by simply looking at the institutions in which he was indoctrinated: First, Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., one of the largest and most radical mosques in the country, where his mentor was Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American-born advocate of jihad and suicide bombing; then the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md., under Imam Faizul Khan, another Muslim extremist, an influential figure in the Washington Islamist scene and an official at both the Islamic Society of North America (an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror-finance trial) and the Saudi-backed Muslim World League.

This troubling picture will surely get worse unless the U.S. government, at long last, decides to take a close look inside radical Islam within the United States.

Should Ongoing Islamic Violence Be Called "Terrorism"?

Western governments, in the past few years, have been grappled with debates on how to define ongoing Islamic violence to help deal with it best. So far any mention of 'Muslim', 'Islam', 'Jihad', and last of all 'terrorism' have been removed from documents and discussions on it. Nonetheless, it is out and out "terrorism" in ideal defenition of the word.

---

There has been a lot of debate on how the ongoing violence by Muslim fanatics, perpetrated in the name of 'Islam' or 'Islamic Jihad', be defined. After 9/11, as emotion was running high, the Bush Administration's calling the campaign against violent Islamic militants a "War on Terror" received wide acceptance. However, Muslims generally have been unhappy with this label: they would be happier if violence by Muslim fanatics would be relegated to a form of social criminal activity; so has been the opinion of many Western liberal commentators.

As the U.S.-led War on Terror lingered on, with al-Qaeda-minded militant outfits flourishing around the world, giving the impression that War on Terror might fail, there has been a lot of soul-searching in the West about the entire campaign, especially on how to define it.

Is the label War on Terror counter-productive?

Should it be called Islamic or Jihadi Terrorism?

Governments in Western countries, of course advised often by radical Muslim organizations, initially reached the conclusion that the violence by a small fraction of Muslim fanatics should not, in any way, be connected to Islam. New manuals were rolled out for distribution amongst various government organizations, particularly law-enforcement agencies, instructing them not to mention words like 'Islam', 'Muslim' or 'Jihad' whiling reporting or talking about violence by Islamic militants.

This was an effort to disconnect Muslims or Islam completely from ongoing violence by radical Muslims; in other words, it was an effort to appease Muslims. Reason has also been given that associating Islam or Muslims to violence make Muslims feel victimized, pushing them further toward taking a radical path. The massive increase in violent trend amongst Muslims worldwide since 9/11, instead of its expected decrease after years of War on Terror, gives good justification to such a line of thinking.

The latest in this saga of redefining ongoing Islamic violence, especially after the arrival of President Obama, has been the debate on whether the violence should be called "terrorism" at all. In fact, the Obama administration has also obliterated the word 'terrorism' from its lexicon concerning ongoing Islamic violence, and has, instead, tried to label it as "man-caused disaster", howsoever ridiculous it may sound. Yet, others advocate that it should simply be seen as normal social criminality by individuals or gangs and be dealt with as such.

Thus, not only the terms 'Islam', 'Muslim' and 'Jihad', but also 'war', 'terrorism' and 'terror' have been effaced from manuals, documents and discussions dealing with ongoing violence by Muslim radicals. The reasoning behind this latest line of thinking has been nicely articulated by one of our reader, Roger, in a letter to me, which I quote below:

I have a question for you. I do not know much about Islam, but have formed the following opinion.

The Muslims and Christians and Jews have been fighting for several thousand years. To avoid playing into the idea of this history of war, the words, "war on terror" ought to be eliminated, as it dignifies the terrorist criminals and thugs as "warriors". Rather, it should be called a "police action", and the terrorist should be called what they are, criminals and gangs of thugs.

If this is a wrong way of thinking, if the world should keep calling it a "war on terror", please explain why. And in the explanation, please address the primary issue; I am concerned calling it a "war on terror" dignifies the jihadists as "warriors"! I am thinking of the American police action against the Italian Mafia that took several generations to complete. We never called it a "war on the Mafia", that would have dignified them way way too much. We termed it a police action, and identified the murderers as criminals, thugs, and the outcast of society, and arrested them, and put them in jail. Yes, it took a generation, but the Mafia is pretty much wiped out now in America. If that is not appropriate for the Islamic terrorists, please explain why.

---

My reply:

Dear Roger,

To the question of whether the measures undertaken against Islamic violence should be called 'war on terror', the best solution is to call it by what it is: 'war on Islamic Jihad or Islamic Jihadi terrorism'.

But that's probably not possible. 'War on terror' is mostly acceptable so far, although not to President Obama, a line of thinking you seem to support.

The first thing we must consider: whether the action of Jihadis can qualify as 'terrorism'. It does.

'Terrorism' is an indiscriminate violent campaign to achieve an ideological aim. Ongoing Islamic Jihadis have a unified ideological goal, and their violence is indiscriminate.

Violence of Jihadis is qualitatively different from social criminality or criminality of Italian Mafia as you have mentioned. Jihadis want a new socio-political order on the global scale; common criminal gangs or mafia don't have such well-defined comprehensive political goal.

Calling it 'war on terror' may dignify the perpetrators somewhat. Nonetheless, in this age of secular democracy, general population, at least in the liberal West, also see 'terrorism' as a dishonorable means to achieve a political goal. This 'label' is somewhat discrediting to the campaign.

---

Roger's reply:

Dear Khan,

Thank you for your reply. I am persuaded by you that this is much larger in scope than the Mafia. You make a perfect point that the Mafia was pretty much a criminal organization with limited scope and impact, usually just in a few local cities and markets, while the Islamic Jihad has the future of the world as its scope, with methods that Hitler would approve. So I no longer will object to labeling it war. I supported Obama, but am becoming slightly nervous that he is not being tough enough. I do remember Reagan having no compunction to calling China a "gang of thugs" and Russia as "the evil empire".

I agree, the impact on humanity is probably going to be severe. I worry about the future. I have heard encouraging words from people who are dedicated to building schools for girls in Afghanistan and some other Muslim countries, with the idea that a society becomes more civil when women are educated. After all, children are in the hands of their mothers during their most formative years.

The war on Islamic Jihad terrorism will require the full resources of modern countries. The first step is to understand the situation correctly.

Thank you for your efforts to educate us all.

Define Terrorism Supporter

There are many people who are conducting outstanding counterterrorism work. HINT: It is not your major news networks and their teleprompter investigative journalists. The best of the best is Steve Emerson.

We all do our best to provide factual information based upon what many of us have worked on for decades. Many of us were trained by our government. I do not consider myself to be an “expert,” but believe I have the background to educate citizens, law enforcement, and our elected officials on terrorism issues related to radical Islamic-based organizations. I have written numerous articles, conducted radio and television interviews, and it has become almost a prerequisite that not only I, but any counterterrorism speaker, must qualify my remarks with, “Of course not all Muslims are bad.” Why does this statement continually have to be made?

During the Korean War, did speakers have to make a preliminary statement that not all North Koreans were bad? Did they have to say during WWI and WWII that not all Germans werre bad, or that not all Japanese were bad? What about the Cold War with Russia? Did we have to start every interview or article with, “Well, not all Russians are bad”?

Of course we didn’t. There are two possible explanations for this:

1. Media personnel and others with an ounce of sense from the left were intelligent enough in the early to mid-1900s to understand the intent of a debate without having to repeat same mantra each and every time.

2. People on the left and right both had basic common sense.

For the time period prior to September 11, 2001, I believe the answer is number “2” above. People had enough common sense to realize a person should not have to always make such a qualifying statement that not all Japanese were bad people who happened to have an atom bomb dropped on them, killing millions. We were at war and we understood war was essentially between “elites” in one country fighting the “elites” in another, and both sides were powerful enough to form large military forces to do the fighting. The people caught in wars are always innocent. Does anyone know of a child who was ripped apart or burnt to death by the atom bomb who was not innocent?

So it is time for Americans and all innocent people who are caught in the middle of the war against Islamic terrorist-based groups to begin understanding why you feel an obligation to repeatedly say, “Well, I know there are good Muslim people.” It is time to stop playing into the hands of Islamic terrorists and their supporters. Just as when Mrs. Clinton visited the Middle East she felt she had an obligation to cover her head, Islamic terrorist-based groups are “conditioning” us to do what they desire. They say you must wear a headdress while in the Middle East and we comply. They say we must allow “Muslim prayer rooms” in a school, office, or airport and we comply. They say we can’t search Muslim females going through security, or a Muslim female can cover her face for a driver’s license and we comply. They tell us our security methods are too stringent on the Muslim people and our law enforcement officers comply and do not enter a mosque unless it has been approved by Congress. They tell us to ignore obvious signs that a United States mid-level officer wanted to kill Christians and Jews, and whose allegiance to the Almighty Allah meant that he would even kill children before he would serve his country and pledge his total allegiance to his country, president, and fellow officers. CAIR, many Imams, and numerous Islamic scholars have fought for years to tell you that the terrorist ideology of the likes of Maj. Hasan (Islamic terrorist and murderer) is protected. We complied and innocent people died at Fort Hood. This Christmas, these men and women’s families will not have them home. Who is protecting the other millions of innocent men, women, and children worldwide? What about here in America?

I am speaking to families now. Are you betting the life of your son or daughter that our government is protecting them from Islamic terrorist groups? Are you relying on the vast majority of elected officials that they have the interests of your children first? What about our law enforcement and military? Do you feel they are trained to fight Islamic terrorist groups when our administration will not even allow them to use the term “Islamic terrorist?” Fellow Americans, our politicians and most media organizations are leading you to a false sense of security. It seems our government will back the rights of an Islamic terrorist supporter such as CAIR, ISNA, MSA, or MANA, to name a few, before they will protect the rights of your innocent child.

Recently, I listened to one of CAIR’s terrorist supporting friends, a man who calls himself Shaykh Khalid Yasin. He is now living in Britain because the British people have been conditioned by Islamic terrorist groups to prosecute Christians for hate speech. Yasin and his cronies know they are safe in Britain.

One may well ask what Shaykh Yasin has said that could be used to show he supports Islamic terrorists. During my travels north, south, east and west within our country, I have amassed almost 5,000 lectures, books, manuals, and DVDs that are being distributed all across our country. They are filled with hate and violence – yet our politicians and media seemed surprised when attacks similar to Maj. Hasan’s are carried out. They ask why. I ask, why are they asking?

Shaykh Yasin is a friend of Siraj Wahhaj, Wahhaj is a friend of CAIR, and CAIR is a friend of Congressman Keith Ellison and dozens more. I encourage all to listen to 90-plus minute talk titled “From the Root to the Fruit.” In it, Yasin discusses the Muslim youth’s role in the future of the Islamic Ummah. Yasin very clearly informs young children that even a Muslim who has committed the most atrocious and violent act against young children (as in pedophiles), rapists, mass murderers, al Qaeda members, and yes, even people like Maj. Hasan from Fort Hood, are better people than even the best Christian or Jew.

What lesson is this to American Christians and Jews? Regardless of whether you currently “cuddle up” to CAIR, shake hands with Siraj Wahhaj, or laugh with the Imams from Dar al Hijrah, they are teaching their children to hate you and if the time comes, to kill you.

I will end this article by pleasing the PC gods. “There are good Muslim people in America.” I will also say that these good Muslim people need to stop supporting CAIR, Siraj Wahhaj, Yusef Estes, Bilal Phillips, and demand that their Imams remove materials by convicted terrorists from their mosques and Islamic Centers. It is difficult for most Americans to believe a person is sincere about Islam being a religion of peace if millions of Muslims are allowing their leaders to distribute material filled with hate, calling for America and Israel’s destruction, and who are allowing the Wahhajs and Yasins to openly advocate violence and support Osama Bin Laden more than they would the leaders of the country in which they reside.

For the Muslims who do not study their own religion and do not believe their Islamic leaders may be advocating violence, I respectfully ask you to contact me at davegaubatz@gmail.com. I will respectfully provide you the titles of books, DVDs, other materials, and violent/convicted terrorists your center supports. These good Muslims, Christians, and Jews should work together to close down CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and MANA. Good Muslims know what the leaders of these organizations truly advocate. Be like the brave Rifqa Bary: stand up and be heard. Otherwise, people do not know if you support terrorist groups or if you support America.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dave Gaubatz spent 20 years as an active duty USAF (Special Agent/OSI), 3.5 years as a civilian 1811 Federal Agent, trained by the U.S. State Department in Arabic, and was the first U.S. Federal Agent to enter Iraq in 2003. He is also a counterterrorism counterintelligence officer. He is co-author of the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America. His website is here, and he can be reached at davegaubatz@gmail.com.

Islamic Terrorism Is Not a New Phenomenon

Islamic terrorism against the United States and the West is not a new phenomenon.

In 1968 Palestinian terrorist Sirhan Sirhan, claiming he was upset at and wanting revenge for the Senator’s support of Israel , assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. In 1973 United States Ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel was murdered in Khartoum by Yasser Arafat’s Black September organization. In 1976 United States Ambassador to Lebanon Francis E. Meloy, Jr was murdered on the authority of the Arab Socialist Action Party. In 1983 in Beirut Al-Jihad Al-Islami, a Hizbollah front group, killed 241 U.S. Marines with a truck bomb driven into the Marine’s compound. In 1988 Pan Am flight 103 was destroyed over Lockerbie , Scotland . While the United States blamed Libya evidence existed that the PFLP-GC (Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command) and Syria itself were involved. In 1993 The World Trade Center was bombed for the first time. In 2000 the U.S.S. Cole was attacked in the Port of Aden, Yemen. On September 11^th, 2001 The World Trade Center towers were brought down murdering three thousand Americans.

I do not claim the aforementioned list to be fully exhaustive; there are many more incidents of Islamic terror, merely a descriptive timeline.

It would be remiss of me to not mention the history of Islamic terrorism against the State of Israel. Israel since the very day of it’s birth in 1948 has been subject to unrelenting attacks and attempts to destroy it. I will touch on the notion of a “ Palestinian State ” a bit later.

Given the long history of Islamic terror against the West, the Crusades were primarily defensive wars. They were an effort to defend against and repel Muslim attacks against Christian lands. At the time of Mohammed’s death the Levant was the most heavily Christian area in the world. Spurred to action by the traditional Islamic belief that Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered Muslim armies quickly overran them. By the eight century all of Christian North Africa and Spain succumbed. The Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor, Christian since the time of St. Paul , in the eleventh century. Christianity as a faith and culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense. The Battle of Vienna in 1683 marked the end of the centuries long struggle between Christian Europe and Muslim invaders.

The present day has the United States of America in the role of defender of Western Judeo-Christian civilization and culture. The stated goal of Islam is world domination.

It can be argued that the Cold War was merely a brief respite in the two thousand year battle against Islam. We will prevail.

With regard to a “ Palestinian State .” Let us keep in mind that the term ‘ Palestine ’, which is derived from the Hebrew word ‘Pelesheth’, is mentioned only once in the Bible. It was not used again until later Roman designations. In fact Romans used the term Judea and called the northern regions Galilee . Israel-Judah-Judea has always existed from the beginning of history until this day as a united, independent sovereign nation state in “ Palestine ” west of the Jordan River . There has never been a “ Palestinian State ” of any kind. It can be cogently argued that the “Palestinians already have their state: Jordan. Nearly three million “Palestinians” live in Jordan out of population of only 5.7 million “Jordanians”.

Additional Resources:

Facts and Logic About the Middle East

The History and Meaning Of "Palestine" and "Palestinians"

Dr. Mordechai Nisan

Zionist Organization of America

W. N. Kilarjian is a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society of the United Kingdom . He regularly writes for MichNews.com, WEBCommentary.com, The Berlin Reporter ( Berlin , NH), PardonMyEnglish.com, OpinionEditorials.com , Israel Pundit, and The Templar Intelligencer.