Terrorists Don’t Like Fox News / Like Mainstream Media

From David Ignatius in the Washington Post:

Bin Laden and his aides hoped for big terrorist operations to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001. They also had elaborate media plans. Adam Gadahn, a U.S.-born media adviser, even discussed in a message to his boss what would be the best television outlets for a bin Laden anniversary video.

“It should be sent for example to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and maybe PBS and VOA. As for Fox News let her die in her anger,” Gadahn wrote. At another point, he said of the networks: “From a professional point of view, they are all on one level — except [Fox News] channel, which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks objectivity, too.”

What an unintended boost for Fox, which can now boast that it is al-Qaeda’s least favorite network.

That Gaza Flotilla

From Slate, an informative article about who these folks are, and what they are really up to.

Of course, Marquette’s Center for Peacemaking is lobbying for these folks.

Calling flotilla people part of a “peace movement” is as much of a sham as saying organizations that have “peace” in their name actually believe in peace.

What they believe in is surrender for America and America’s allies, and war waged by America’s enemies.

Cheney on the War on Terror -- Uncut and Uncensored

You’ve seen the sound bites, and you’ve seen endless analysis. But an excellent use of the better part of an hour is to see Dick Cheney’s speech uncut.

Compare this to President Teleprompter. It would be easy to say it’s style versus substance. But untimately, the sober recitation of facts and solid logic is a compelling style.

Finally: Admitting the Truth About Bill Ayers

Now that Obama is safely elected, the media can start telling the truth about Bill Ayers. Indeed, in this case the truth comes from the hard-left Nation.

Because, you see, while The Nation is hard left, Ayers had some severe critics on the left.

It couldn’t have been easy for Bill Ayers to keep quiet while the McCain campaign tarred him as the Obama’s best friend, the terrorist. Unfortunately, the silence was too good to last. On Saturday’s New York Times op-ed page, he announced that “it’s finally time to tell my true story.” Like his memoir, Fugitive Days , “The Real Bill Ayers” is a sentimentalized, self-justifying whitewash of his role in the weirdo violent fringe of the 1960s-70s antiwar left.

“I never killed or injured anyone,” Ayers writes. “In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village.” Right. Those people belonged to Weatherman, as did Ayers himself and Bernardine Dohrn, now his wife. Weatherman, Weather Underground, completely different! And never mind either that that “accidental explosion” was caused by the making of a nail bomb intended for a dance at Fort Dix.

Ayers writes that Weather Underground bombings were “symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam War.” That no one was killed or injured was a monumental stroke of luck-- an unrelated bombing at the University of Wisconsin unintentionally killed a researcher and seriously injured four people. But if the point was to symbolize outrage, why not just spraypaint graffiti on government buildings or pour blood on military documents?

“Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war,” Ayers writes. “So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.” I’m not so sure that terrorism necessarily involves intentional attacks on people, but okay, let’s say Ayers wasn’t a terrorist. How about thuggish? Vainglorious? Egomaniacal? Staggeringly irresponsible? And illogical, don’t forget illogical: as Hilzoy points out, the idea that because “peaceful protest” hadn’t ended the war, bombs would is missing a couple of links. It’s like a doctor saying, Well, chemo didn’t cure your brain tumor, so I’ll have to amputate your leg.

I realize this is ancient history. As a friend who doesn’t see why I am raking this all up argues, it’s not as if today’s left is bristling with macho streetfighters. It’s hard to imagine anyone now applauding the Manson murders, as Dohrn notoriously did in l969, or dedicating a manifesto to, among others, Sirhan Sirhan. But just because it’s ancient history doesn’t mean you get to rewrite it to make yourself look good, just another idealistic young person upset about the war and racism.

None of this is relevant to the issue of how close to Ayers Barack Obama was (we think the connection with Jeremiah Wright is much more damning).

But let’s have intellectual clarity. Ayers was scum, and remains scum. Nobody should be supporting him (as Marquette Professor of Biomedical Engineering Jack Winters does).

The fact that he is a rather mainstream figure in schools of education says a lot (none of it flattering) about schools of education.

Hamas Uses Civilians as Human Shields

It’s a propaganda tactic that works well -- provided that media are willing to be suckered -- as the BBC apparently is.

Try to get as many civilians as possible killed, and then portray Israeli forces as bloodthirsty and engaged in genocide.

From the pro-Israel Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, a detailed report on how Hamas does this.

Key elements are:

1) Firing rockets from densely populated areas and targeting population centers in Israel with the overt intention of harming Israeli civilians. Jabaliya, Beit Hanoun and other populated areas of the northern Gaza Strip are the preferred launching areas for attacking the western Negev towns and villages.

2) Locating the terrorist operative infrastructure within the civilian population : weapons (including rockets), bases, offices, headquarters, tunnels, lathes and weapons stores. During Operation Hot Winter IDF soldiers fought against Hamas operatives who established themselves inside civilian homes.

3) Enlisting Palestinian civilians (including women and children ) through the use of terrorist-owned media and loudspeakers. That is done to call them to gather at the houses they expect the IDF to attack in order to serve as human shields.

Check out the report, which has multiple photos of all these activities.

Hamas, it seems, is quite as happy to get Palestinian non-combatants killed as it is happy to kill Israeli civilians in terrorist attacks.

Adopt-a-Terrorist for Prayer?

Yep, that’s the motto of a website whose ministry is based on the idea that the struggle against radical Islam is spiritual, not material, and must be fought spiritually.

Thus people are encouraged to “adopt a terrorist” and pray for the conversion of that terrorist to Christianity.

Check out the You-Tube clip below.

The site is rather moderate in tone, warning against dehumanizing Muslims in general, but making no bones about the fact that the terrorists are wrong and that Christianity is superior to Islam.

Which means it won’t appeal to the hard-core politically correct types like Jeremiah Wright or Marquette’s own Dan Maguire, who believe that terrorists are doing God’s work chastizing evil imperialistic America. That is, if they believe in God (which is a bit questionable).

Neither will it appeal to people who want terrorists sent straight to Hell, the sooner the better.

We have no particular quarrel with the theology of the site, but would rather spend our time praying for the safety of American soldiers facing the terrorists in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Islamic Terrorism: Not the Result of Poverty

Leftists like Ward Churchill and Marquette’s own Dan Maguire like to believe that Islamic terrorism is the fault of the West. Specifically, they like to believe that Muslim countries are poor and oppressed, and therefore strike out against the Evil Exploiters.

Like most politically correct fantasies, this turns out to be untrue. From Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel.

When Princeton economist Alan Krueger saw reports that seven of eight people arrested in the unsuccessful car bombings in Britain were doctors, he wasn’t shocked. He wasn’t even surprised.

“Each time we have one of these attacks and the backgrounds of the attackers are revealed, this should put to rest the myth that terrorists are attacking us because they are desperately poor,” he says. “But this misconception doesn’t die.”

Less than a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush said, “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror.” A couple of months later, his wife, Laura, said, “Educated children are much more likely to embrace the values that defeat terror.” Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn has argued, “The war on terrorism will not be won until we have come to grips with the problem of poverty, and thus the sources of discontent.”

The analysis is plausible. It’s appealing because it bolsters the case for the worthy goals of fighting poverty and ignorance. But systematic study -- to the extent possible -- suggests it’s wrong.

“As a group, terrorists are better educated and from wealthier families than the typical person in the same age group in the societies from which they originate,” Mr. Krueger said at the London School of Economics last year in a lecture soon to be published as a book, “What Makes a Terrorist?”

“There is no evidence of a general tendency for impoverished or uneducated people to be more likely to support terrorism or join terrorist organizations than their higher-income, better-educated countrymen,” he said. The Sept. 11 attackers were relatively well-off men from a rich country, Saudi Arabia.

He began poking around this sordid subject a decade ago when he and a colleague found little connection between economic circumstances and the incidence of violent hate crimes in Germany. Among the statistical pieces of the puzzle a small band of academics have assembled since are these:

• Backgrounds of 148 Palestinian suicide bombers show they were less likely to come from families living in poverty and were more likely to have finished high school than the general population. Biographies of 129 Hezbollah shahids (martyrs) reveal they, too, are less likely to be from poor families than the Lebanese population from which they come. The same goes for available data about an Israeli terrorist organization, Gush Emunim, active in the 1980s.

• Terrorism doesn’t increase in the Middle East when economic conditions worsen; indeed, there seems no link. One study finds the number of terrorist incidents is actually higher in countries that spend more on social-welfare programs. Slicing and dicing data finds no discernible pattern that countries that are poorer or more illiterate produce more terrorists. Examining 781 terrorist events classified by the U.S. State Department as “significant” reveals terrorists tend to come from countries distinguished by political oppression, not poverty or inequality.

• Public-opinion polls from Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey find people with more education are more likely to say suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq are justified. Polls of Palestinians find no clear difference in support for terrorism as a means to achieve political ends between the most and least educated.

Data on which all this relies are hardly perfect: Terrorists don’t fill out elaborate questionnaires. Better-off, better-educated individuals could be motivated if not by their own circumstances, then by the conditions of their impoverished countrymen. Interviews of terrorists in Pakistan by Harvard terrorism scholar Jessica Stern reveal recruiters there found the poorest neighborhoods to be the most fertile ground, particularly among those who feel Muslims are humiliated by the West.

Of course, this is a bit of a fudge by Stern.

The claim that Muslims are humiliated by the West could be merely a rationalization for terrorism on the part of people with deep seated and irrational grudges.

The blame America crowd, of course, simply goes on to blame America for some other reason: the war in Iraq, Bush Administration policies in support of Israel, etc.

One thing they will never consider is that there are problems with Islam as a religion, and with the political institutions of Islamic countries. When they blame America, they feel morally superior to Americans. That’s a firmly entrenched habit with them.

Speak Up!

Terrorists Laud Pelosi Visit to Syria

From WorldNetDaily:

JERUSALEM – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit today to Syria – in which she called for dialogue with Damascus – was “brave” and “very appreciated” and could bring about “important changes” to America’s foreign policy, including talks with “Middle East resistance groups,” according to members of terror organizations here whose top leaders live in Syria.

One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker’s Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East.

Pelosi’s visit was opposed by President Bush, who called Syria a “state sponsor of terror.”

“Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice,” said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. “If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. . . . I hope she wins the next elections.”

Islamic Jihad has carried out scores of shootings and rocket attacks, and, together with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years.

Ramadan Shallah, overall chief of Islamic Jihad, lives in Syria, as does Hamas chieftain Khaled Meshaal. Israel has accused the Syrian-based Hamas and Islamic Jihad leadership of ordering militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to carry out terror attacks.

Al-Batch expressed hope Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pressure Bush to create dialogue with Syria and Middle East “resistance movements” and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq.

“Bush and Dr. Rice made so many mistakes in the Middle East. Just look at Palestinian clashes and Iraq. But I think some changes are happening for the Bush administration’s foreign policy because of the hand of Nancy Pelosi. I think the Democratic Party can do things the best. . . . Pelosi is going down a good road by this policy of dialogue,” he said.

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria “is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S.”

“The Americans know and understand they are losing in Iraq and the Middle East and that their only chance to survive is to reduce hostilities with Arab countries and with Islam. Islam is the new giant of the world.”

“Pelosi’s visit to Syria was very brave. She is a brave woman,” Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, told WND. “I think it’s very nice and I think it’s much better when you sit face to face and talk to (Syrian President Bashar) Assad. It’s a very good idea. I think she is brave and hope all the people will support her. All the American people must make peace with Syria and Iran and with Hamas. Why not?” Jaara said.

Audio of the terrorists statements can be found here.

That’s the Correct Direction, Certainly

Muslim Violence in Middle East Targets Christians

From Christianity Today, the fact that Muslim violence in the Middle East, which usually seems to target Jews (in Israel) and fellow Muslims (in Iraq) also targets Christians.

1. Lebanon gets worse as Christians targeted

Two commuter buses were bombed Tuesday in the small Christian village of Ain Alak (photos). “Many residents simply shrugged over the culprit’s identity, a seeming gesture of weariness over a crisis that has brought Lebanon perilously close to civil war,” The Washington Post reports. But everyone agrees that the target was Lebanon’s Christian community, and the victims were among the poorer members of that community.

“The buses were packed with students, blue-collar workers, Sri Lankan maids and women making their way to Christian theology lessons,” the Los Angeles Times notes.

“The attacks, spaced 10 minutes apart … appeared to mark a new chapter in Lebanon’s months-old crisis, with the aim shorn of any apparent political objective beyond killing civilians,” says the Post.

If you haven’t read our recent coverage of the Lebanon crisis from the perspective of two Lebanese evangelicals, be sure to read Martin Accad’s “The ‘Jesus Manifesto’ for Lebanon” and Riad Kassis’ “The Colors of Lebanon.”

2. Coptic Christians attacked again in Egypt

It seems not to take much for Muslims in southern Egypt to attack Christians in the area. Reuters reports that “rumors of a love affair between a Muslim woman and a Coptic Christian man” set off a riot in Armant, with Muslims attacking Christian shops and a minivan. Eight Muslim men (who are permitted to marry Christian women, but whose daughters are not allowed to marry Christian men) were arrested.

Of course, conservative American Christians are much more likely to side with the Jewish victims of terrorism than more secular Americans, and more likely to favor a tough line against terrorism anywhere.

But if there remain any Christians who are (illogically) thinking “this terrorism stuff is just a threat to other people,” the only advice we can give is “wake up!”

More Muslim Censorship On a College Campus: San Francisco State University

Via Eminent Domain, the story of how an anti-terrorism demonstration at San Francisco State University angered Muslim students.

The incident had echos of a case at Pace University where activist Muslim students objected to, and got the administration to censor, a documentary film about terrorism.

At San Francisco State, the College Republicans produced large copies of the flags of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah and walked on this.

The upshot: they got into trouble with the univesity, and face disciplinary hearings. From the The Volokh Conspiracy, quoting the San Francisco Chronicle:

This story starts with an “anti-terrorism rally” held last October on campus by the College Republicans. To emphasize their point, students stomped on Hezbollah and Hamas flags. According to the college paper, the Golden Gate (X)Press, members of Students Against War and the International Socialist Organization showed up to call the Republicans “racists,” while the president of the General Union of Palestinian Students accused the Repubs of spreading false information about Muslims.

In November, the Associated Students board passed a unanimous resolution, which the (X)Press reported, denounced the California Republicans for “hateful religious intolerance” and criticized those who “pre-meditated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence.”

Now you know that there are students who are opposed to desecrating flags on campus -- that is, if the flags represent terrorist organizations.

But wait -- there’s more. A student filed a complaint with the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development. OSPLD Director Joey Greenwell wrote to the College Republicans informing them that his office had completed an investigation of the complaint and forwarded the report to the Student Organization Hearing Panel, which will adjudicate the charge. At issue is the charge that College Republicans had walked on “a banner with the world ‘Allah’ written in Arabic script” -- it turns out Allah’s name is incorporated into Hamas and Hezbollah flags -- and “allegations of attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment,” as well as “actions of incivility.”

At an unnamed date, the student panel could decide to issue a warning to, suspend or expel the GOP club from campus.

Maybe SFSU should just put up a sign that reads: Conservatives need not apply.

Volokh notes:

Sounds to me like SFSU is acknowledging that under SFSU rules, desecrating Allah — or, to be precise, desecrating religious symbols — is indeed prohibited. Everything old (here, blasphemy bans) is new again.

What is new, of coure, is that Islam is protected against blasphemy, and Christianity is not.

And flag desecration is bad, unless it’s the American flag.