Terror Free Tomorrow

FOX NEWS: Interview of Ken Ballen, Terror Free Tomorrow (5/30/07)

"Al Qaeda wants us to see all Muslims as the enemy. And when we demonize Islam or Muslims, we play into Al Qaeda's hands. I prosecuted terrorists. But we must have policies that are effective in stemming popular support. Terror Free Tomorrow's 20-plus surveys of Muslim countries over the past two years reveal that not only do Muslims reject terrorism, but even those who are sympathetic to radical ideology can be won over by positive American actions that promote goodwill and offer real hope. We actually set back the fight against terror by not clearly affirming that, by every objective and scientific measure, Muslims want peace and reject terrorism as much as non-Muslims."

Navy News Stand (6/19/07)

USNS Comfort left Norfolk on June 15 enroute to Central America, South America and the Caribbean and USS Peleliu currently steams toward the Philippines. The ships are proving critical to fighting the global war on terrorism. Fighting it, that is, with a helping hand. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen made it clear that humanitarian missions such as these help foster and sustain relationships, while building the "positive side of who we are, the goodwill we bring" that can help prevent the spread of terrorism. For Admiral Mullen's testimony to the House Armed Services, please click here.

From Terror Free Tomorrow in The Wall Street Journal:

"Radical Islam has become a mass movement throughout the Muslim world.... More than the simple number of new recruits, however, the degree to which radical Islamism enjoys popular support hinders the ability to collect vital intelligence from an unsympathetic public. No matter what reward is offered for Osama bin Laden, for instance, the support he enjoys in the tribal areas of Pakistan provides him with a layer of public protection that makes it exceedingly difficult for even the most sophisticated intelligence to penetrate. Most critically, the growing popular support of radical Islamism destroys the ability of moderate Muslims and friendly governments to successfully occupy the public space necessary to counter the radicals."

So, then why do you suppose they felt the need for their own country turnea? Spite?

The fact of the matter is, the Jews lived in Muslim countries because they had no where else to go and if you read your history books you will find different opinions on just how 'accomidating' the Muslims actually were. More often than not Muslim tolerance of Jews was no more tolerant than the Europeans, the only difference being the wholesale extermination of the Jews was never carried out by Muslims. They did this instead to the Armenians, the Greeks, the Makurians, the once majority Christian populations of Egypt and Anatolia... but never the Jews. At least not in numbers. large enough to gain public notoriety

So today, people like you can wax lyrical about how 'tolerant' the Muslims used to be to the Jews with scant regard to the truth about Muslim history and its legacy of slavery and oppression and even less regard for the situation today where the so called tolerance of the past has no footing in the Islamic world of the present.

Whats the actual difference!? Religion is just another way of controlling the masses. Of obtaining what the Romans once called imperium. Power. Political power. Islam is a power structure just as surely as any other.


Right.... so just why do Jews in Denmark have to hide the trappings of their faith? Why do synagogues now need body guards? Why is there Islamic graffiti on synagogue walls? Why are synagogues been burned down and Jews being attacked by Muslims in Denmark and the rest of Northern Europe?

The only reason why you don't see more anti Jewish and anti gay rhetoric in Europe is because it is still illegal here and the culprits have to be wary to avoid prosecution. That hasn't stopped Muslims and other 'haters' from attacking, raping and torturing Jews to death when ever they've managed to get the chance however. far from it.

Your argument rests upon the assumption that the majority of Muslims do not belong to this group of 'haters'. That the silent majority is innocent of any wrong doing. That the bulk of Muslims defy the bulk of their own teachers and clerics in forming anti Jewish/gay/kuffar attitudes. You are living in a fantasy. The vast majority of Muslims are indifferent. They stand idle, like cattle going to the slaughter house.


I do not believe I have made any 'blanket assumptions'. I have taken these people's own words and statements and I have believed them. When the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran says 'death to Israel' and there is so little outcry in the Muslim world. I believe them.
When, as Loreng has pointed out, 'Mein Kampf' is a major best seller in the Muslim world. I belive them.

When attack after attack on American soldiers in Iraq is accompanied by the chant; 'Allahu Akbar'. I believe them.

I could not care less if a bunch of silent people find themselves being associated with murderers and terrorists because they share the same ideology. That is their responsibility. Not mine. If I proclaimed myself to be a Communist, I would expect to have to address the murders and terror done in the name of that ideology. If I claimed to be a Nazi, I would expect people to demand of me, 'why did I associate with such murderers?'. There is such a thing as taking responsibility and I don't see that happening in the Muslim world.


A point I already made so don't pat yourself on the back to hard.


Its a shame your vigour doesn't extend to defending the victims of Muslims as well. Any one might be forgiven, were they to have read and believed your posts, that the Muslims were the victims of Islamic terrorism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Yes. A lot more!


You have to got to joking if you think 15 web sites equates to the majority opinion of the Muslim world! And especially when one reads some of those web sites as I have done, many times, and noted the continuous ambiguous nature of the condemnation involved or the two faced people offering their protests. As if people with their own documented links to terrorism have any validity in their criticisms.

Your list, much like turnea's is largely an exersize in damage control by people like Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah and the Muslim Brotherhood. The architects behind Hizb'Allah and Hamas.

There is no secret that millions of Muslims are moderates, nor is it difficult to dredge up fifteen, or even fifty web pages of Muslims protesting terrorism. Unfortunately it is not impressive either.

Not when 2 million Brits turn out to demonstrate against the war in Iraq. Not when a million Turks turn out to demonstrate against rising Islamism in Turkey.


Yes, and if you translate that in to German it reads mein kampf.


So what?

Since when did that make any difference what so ever?


edited to rearrange quotes.

If you have conceded that millions of Muslims are moderates, you have conceded the point. No? The link in my next post, Terror Free Tomorrow is a bit more convincing.

It shows non-partisan support from former Presidents Clinton and Bush, as well as members of the 911 Commission, and states it far better than I could:


"Al Qaeda wants us to see all Muslims as the enemy. And when we demonize Islam or Muslims, we play into Al Qaeda's hands. I prosecuted terrorists. But we must have policies that are effective in stemming popular support. Terror Free Tomorrow's 20-plus surveys of Muslim countries over the past two years reveal that not only do Muslims reject terrorism, but even those who are sympathetic to radical ideology can be won over by positive American actions that promote goodwill and offer real hope. We actually set back the fight against terror by not clearly affirming that, by every objective and scientific measure, Muslims want peace and reject terrorism as much as non-Muslims."






Mein Kampf is an innocous title to a racist pamphlet. The point you think you have scored in pointing that out is a cheap one. To struggle in the way of God describes an internal struggle. Mein Kampf is about one man's supposed persecution by a perceived oppressor. You may have impressed some with that bit of hyperbole, but I am not among them.

Might have something to do with it...

Few said they were as bad as Europe at the time.

History of the Jews in Spain
Jews lived widely throughout the Arab world in relative peace for centuries.

The Armenians I won't dispute, though that was under secular Turkish rule if I remember correctly.

You'll have to back up reports of mass extermination for everybody else.

I disagree, I see no reason why a communist today (*or yesterday) should feel any responsibility for Stalin or Mao.

Often times they are.
*edited

Actually, no. I have MADE this point, many times. There is no revelaton in this. Its not as if there is some big secret that has been uncovered.

Yes, there are millions of moderate Muslims. The problem is not with Muslims. It is with Islam. There have always been moderate Muslims, as far back as you care to go. I've read accounts of Muslims, auto biographical and otherwise, from as far back as the time of the first crusade who were undoubtably moderate Muslims.

The point is, then as now, moderate Muslims have no impact on Islam. They never have and as far as I can see, never will have. The vast majority of Muslims remain utterly indifferent to the ambiguous nature of their religion and the horrendous crimes it permits.
By my measure. Indifference to tyranny = tyranny.


Odd then don't you think that this racist pamphlet is the second most popular book in the Middle East....

And just what does 'to struggle in the way of God' mean any way? Thats as ambiguous an explanation as anything I've ever heard. What is the way of God? Maybe we can find the answer by reading the Quran?

About a year or so ago, Tony Blair, seeking to mend the gaps between the Muslim population and the rest of Britain explained that he had read the Quran in its entirety, twice, to get a better understanding of who the Muslims were and what they believed. He told the media assembled at a press conference that he understood the message of the Quran and that it was a message of peace.

I didn't think much of this until I happened to come across a debate on Islam online (one of the dubious sites on your list) where a Muslim poster asked a scholar in a debate whether or not there was any validity in Blairs arguments as to the nature of Islam. The scholar replied, "No one can understand the Quran simply by reading it once or twice. It requires a lifetime of study to fully comprehend the message of Allah. ...and incidently, it should preferably be done in Arabic."

If ever you want a definition of ambiguity then, you can find it in Islam. Its central message is the submission to the will of God by means of a struggle in the way of God, but in order to understand the will of God, you apparently need guidance from an old man with a beard well versed in the 'ways of God'. And there's the problem right there. Islam allows itself to be used for violent jihad. It allows, tolerates, even encourages warfare, even whilst arging against it. It is ambigiuous. Open to even the most horrendous interpretation. It can readily, easily, willingly be used to justify flying aeroplanes, full of passengers into buildings full of innocent people called kuffah. Non believers. Sub humans. Üntermennesche. Niggers. What ever word you want to call them. Islam permits murder and there are thousands of imams and clerics advocating murder.

Furthermore, for the regular Muslim, speaking out against the extremists, taking the part of the kuffah, is not only a sin. It is a punishable sin.

The are few universal truths, but those that are, are usually self evident. Turnea argues this topic because he believes in the fundamental human right of freedom of religion. That is an admirable position to take and one I would agree with in most all circumstances but one. When, as turnea argues himself, the circumstance is not simply a matter of religion, but one of politics.

Self evident truth speaks for itself but when something is too horrible to contemplate, we human beings, often choose to believe something else. Neville Chamberlain taught us the danger of denial in the face of tyranny. Freedom of religion makes no difference to this matter. This is not about people's right to follow a religion. That right ends when their religion advocates violence.




Because....? You don't believe the Muslims ever committed pogroms? Sorry turnea, but I'm not branching further off topic just to accomidate another point of contention, disbelieve it if you so wish.


I think you need to decide for yourself what it means that you've chosen to subscribe to an ideology that has led to the murder of innocent people. Regardless of which ideology that is or how many people were murdered.


edited to add a missing word

Your attempted translations are technically accurate, but also in usage wrong. It is akin to uses the word 'gay' to describe a person as being 'happy'. Technically that would be a correct translation, but the term is not used in that manner at this time.

THE KORAN ON JIHAD

"5.33" : The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle
and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be
murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on
opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for
them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous
chastisement,

"8.38" : Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past
shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the
ancients has already passed.

"8.39" : And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion
should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what
they do.

"9.5" : So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters
wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in
wait for them in every ambush,then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay
the poor-rate, leave their way free to them;surely Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful.

"9.29" : Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor
do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the
religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay
the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of
subjection.

"9.30" : And the Jews say: ΠUzairΠis the son of Allah; and the Christians
say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths;
they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy
them; how they are turned away!

"9.36" : Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's
ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these
four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to
yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheistsΠall together as they
fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against
evil).

"9.73" : O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites
and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the
destination.

"9.123" : O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to
you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who
guard (against evil).

Just about every group has committed pogroms, except the pacifists.

...but that isn't what you said. My disbelief is a direct result of being aware of history.


My point is that we should blame those actually guilty and stop all this guilt by association nonsense. Most communists around the world bear no responsibility for what Kim Jong-Il does. That's his problem.

Of course moderate Muslims have an impact on Islam. To a large existent they are Islam.

That may indeed be the case.

That may also indeed by the case. But where is the evidence of this? Yes, you provided some links, and they are, as I said, a very good start. But there are far from convincing proof that a huge majority of Muslims are against terrorism. Perhaps I should put it this way--If indeed such a huge majority are so against terrorism, what then are most of them doing about it?



That may be the case. I can only say that for myself, I do differentiate between those militant Islamic groups that actively promote and carry out terrorism, and the the average Muslim.



Yes, this is a very good point.



Really? Which knowledge do you presume you have that I do not? That is a fairly bold statement from one who knows nothing at all about me, my knowledge, or my experiences.



OK, what signs will be there? What should we be looking for?



Ah, you mean like when you presumed you had knowledge that I did not, a statement that could only be made by placing me into some artificial grouping?



I agree. This is exactly why it is so extremely important that they be very active in denouncing terrorism.

As many of them are.

I'm calling foul because we are asking of the Muslim community what we've never expected from any other single faith community in history. Are you aware that a large part of the massive resistance to integration in Alabama was organized out of a Birmingham Methodist layman association?

The KKK invoked God's name over and over even as they killed fellow Christians. Sound familiar? Al-Qaeda sells the same political struggle coated in religious rhetoric.

It would have been nice to see millions of white Americans flooding the streets protesting after the 16th Street Church bombing, but it never happened. Does it mean they approved?

We are all aware of history turnea. You do not have a monopoly on the ability to read books.


I never said they were. Nor did I, as a matter of fact mention any names at all. No one is responsible for the actions of other people.

What they ARE responsible for though is the decision to support an ideology that justifies murder.


Well, then they are responsible for it!


Correct me if I'm wrong, but were the KKK not done away with? Do they still exist? Do they exist with any sort of support? Have they recently attacked any sky scrapers with passengers full of commuters?

So what if we are asking a faith community (what ever that is) to take responsibility for their ideology? You've already said yourself that this is not a religious matter but a political one and humanity has a long tradition of holding political ideology's to account.

Islam justifies murder no more than communism "justified" Stalin, arguably the greatest mass murderer in history.

Religion can be used to cover other political ends, I don't think that's the same thing.

Moderate muslims are not responsible for Islamic terrorists.


No, we have the FBI to thank for that and a legal system which makes their leaders responsible for the actions of individual Klan members.

It did not happen by badgering the white community in the states to protest and denounce them, many* did, like they cared.

*Well hundreds anyway
Edited to add:
The Klan was certainly active more recently than the Nazis since we are making historical comparisons.

As Loreng has already pointed out....



Now try finding that in the communist manifesto! You can pretend otherwise all you want to turnea, but that is justification. Not only is it justification. It is an obligation to the faithful, and one which is used. Constantly.

What Islam needs is reform, and it isn't getting it. It has never had it and unless the Muslims get their act together soon, it never will until another spate of mass slaughter and war is upon us. Here is the ever sharp Irshad Manji's take on that subject, which was recently drawn to my attention:

Link.

Thanks for the link TC.

Mrs. P I will endeavor to keep on subject but I think that when people make unfounded assertions that those should be challenged as well.

1) What are your impressions of the news that car bombs were found on London's streets?
I think that a terrible tragedy was averted by good luck, good police work, and a level of surveillance that Americans would find oppressive.

2) Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States? I believe that is part because of the British policy of allowing terrorists into their country and protecting them. Many of the Imams are wanted in the MiddleEast for terrorism in their native lands and the British refuse to honor extradiction requests. But that would assuming that this was an Al Qaeda plot and by all known information is what by Al Qaeda like wantabes.

The British have been in love with the Arab culture for over a century (I call the Lawrence of Arabia Syndrome). And terrorists have been using that to their advantage.

But I think that we should hear from the terrorists in England why they targetted that country. I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist

3) Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one? In this case it is a police action. There is no other nation protecting the terrorists like Afghanistan did for OBL and company, or Lebanon and Syria do for Hezbollah.

4) Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attacks carried out? It has nothing to do with any skill. We certainly do not have the level of security that England has. One thing is that the US has not tolerated the level of internal control that the Imams have successful foisted on Londonistan.

I think the case about individual imams may be well made though we've yet to see whether these imams are in anyway actually connected to terrorism.

The reason why much of the previous discussion was in fact on topic was that it was in answer to question two. Some people seem to think more Muslims=more terrorists when (speaking of unbacked assertion) that line of reasoning has been shown to be largely unfounded here.

I'm always very hesitant to form opinion based on the Daily Mail. The paper is not exactly the picture of top-notch journalism. I have one downstairs a friend gave me, we bring it out for laughs on occassion.

For this case and for the issue in general, I suspect we have to wait to see what investigators actually turn up. Right now what we have is speculation run rampant.

The only thing unfounded so far has been your continued assertions regarding the support and reasons for these attacks.

What I'd like to know is, if these attacks were not motivarted by Islam, then what were they motivated by turnea? So far we in Europe have been told by our intellectual elite that these terrorists are motivated by just about every thing under the sun, except Islam. We're supposed to believe that when a British doctor rams his jeep into an airport and jumps out screaming "Allah! Allah!" he is motivated by poverty or the war in Iraq or alienation and racism by the Brits or any excuse that seems to fit the latest attack. Any except the one the terrorists themselves quote.

"Allah! Allah!" ...yeah, obviously this man is upset about being poverty stricken in a country which hates him.


Ah, more blind right wing traitors

They should form a support group...

How about the Vancouver Sun, are they good enough for you?


No, we also have a long list of media reports regarding more doctors and hospital staff, who just happen to be Muslims... or at least we may assume they are given the propensity of the name Mohammed. In actual fact, the British prefer to label these people as 'Asians', though quite why all Asians should bear the brunt of that generalization is beyond me given no one ever chose to be born Asian where as any one can walk away from a religion ...though in doing so they might very well invite a world of pain to descend upon themselves.

Asians... I guess from now on I'd better keep an eye on any Japanese tourists I might see in the city, or stay alert in case the Vietnamese family who own the take away down the road get radicalized.

...and doesn't this strike anyone else as odd?

disregarding all the talk about poverty etc. why all medical professionals?

That is partly what I mean by speculation, we have a little "what" but absolutely no "why."

...and my trouble with the Daily Mail isn't one of politics. Very little of what comes out of the UK can be considered right-wing by American standards, I never even noticed.

My trouble is the sensationalist shoddy journalism.