Blogs and Stories
Call the Terrorists What They Are
L to R: Landov (2); AP Photo
The foiled plot to bomb New York synagogues, disclosed today, highlights the absurdity, and danger, of Obama's avoiding the term "Islamic radicals."
There are several lessons that the U.S. government and public should learn from the foiled plot by four radical Muslims, disclosed today, to bomb synagogues in New York and shoot down a military plane using a Stinger missile.
For President Obama, the "enemy" can no longer be limited to just al Qaeda, as he has insisted in pre- and post- campaign interviews. When asked who the enemy is, he reflexively says "al Qaeda." He has categorically refused to use the term "radical Islam" or "Islamic extremism." But that is exactly what we are facing—and have been facing for the past three decades.
Were we afraid to name German Nazis or Soviet communists as the enemy? Were we afraid to label white racists or Aryan Nations?
It was radical Islam when the Hezbollah killed 241 Marines in Beirut in October 1983. It was radical Islam when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. It was radical Islam when hundreds of Israelis were blown to smithereens in Hamas suicide bombings. It was radical Islam that was responsible for the killing of hundreds of Bali vacationers, the bombing of Spanish trains, and the suicide bombings of the London tube killing scores of Londoners in July 2005. Radical Islam has been responsible for the murder or attempted murder of tens of thousands of civilians in nearly every corner of the globe, no matter what group you call it—Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Lakshar e-Tayba and yes, al Qaeda.
Contrary to the apologists for radical Islam who convinced former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last year to ban the use of the term "Islamic" in describing terrorists or militants, taking away the term "Islamic" from the term "Islamic terrorists" does not diminish the willingness to use violence or the religious hatred that radical Muslims hold for Jews and the United States. What the self-sanitization does is to exonerate Muslim leaders from having to confront the monster in their own communities, monsters that in many cases they helped create. Because it is radical Islamist groups—feigning recognition as civil-rights organizations, often with the connivance of news organizations and even government agencies—that have deliberately tried to erase the distinction between moderate Islam and radical Islam. Why? So these groups can tar anyone who criticizes militant Islam as a racist or Islamophobe or as someone trying to portray the U.S. at war with the religion itself.
Indeed, in the speech that the president delivered in Turkey, he pointedly stated that the U.S. was not at war with Islam. The only problem with that statement is that it implies somehow that we in the United States were responsible for creating that impression. It was a red herring. In point of fact, the Bush administration never once said it was at war with Islam; in fact it stated repeatedly that it was not at war with Islam. So where did this impression of a war with Islam arise from? It came from the Islamic groups themselves, from al Qaeda to Iran to Hezbollah, from Hamas to Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf Al Qardawi. And most importantly, the false and incendiary charge that the U.S. was at war with Islam came repeatedly from U.S.-based radical Islamic groups—pretending to be civil-rights groups, like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (which was finally labeled a Hamas front by the FBI "only" 14 years after they were explicitly created by Hamas). In speeches my organization has monitored by these two U.S. groups and other Islamist groups and radical leaders across the country, officials of radical organizations have claimed there was a war against Islam scores of times, reverberating of course in uncritical media outlets around the world.
The only problem was that there was no war against Islam unless one includes al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the multitude of other radical Islamist groups. There not only should be a war against these radical groups; there has to be if we are going to defeat them. The president seems to believe that a two-state solution in Israel is the panacea for stopping the spread of radical Islam. How tragically and dangerously wrong that is. A two-state solution—assuming for the moment that they are not armed to the teeth with missiles that could down every plane at Ben Gurion Airport—would never satisfy the Islamist groups.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Amateur Hour at the White House
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
The Creeping Homegrown Threat
Steve Emerson is Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and author of 5 books and countless articles on terrorism. His most recent book is Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.
Soraya's Warning to the Mullahs
Steve Emerson is Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and author of 5 books and countless articles on terrorism. His most recent book is Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.
America’s Homegrown Terrorists
Steve Emerson is Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and author of 5 books and countless articles on terrorism. His most recent book is Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.
Mr Emerson.
Calling someone a name does not win any war on "Terror".
Axis of Evil, War on Terror, with us or against us, etc.
If you are concerned about terrorisim you might write an article as to WHY there are so many Terrorists. Might it be our horrible track reccord the last 30 years in the middle east?. Maybe attacking Iraq when they had NOTHING to do with 911 and had no WMD?. 100,000 dead Arabs might piss a few people off.
Might it be the one sided support for Isreal and not so much for Palestine? ( I dont take any sides of this conflict so please save the poor Isreal rhetoric ).
Obama has spoken out against radical Islam, he is just not going to pander to the right a simply start name calling. Bush did just that and look where it got us.
Puffing out your chest a calling people names might be good speaking @ the Heritage Foundation but is does little to solve the real issues @ hand.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Apologists?. WTF Over?.
So let me get this straight, if you are not part of the "Axis Of Evil" crowd you are an apologist?.
These bafoons could not have held up a MacDonalds let alone blown something up... Please spare us the BS.
This is just more BS to keep the public scared.
We keep pissing off the Arab world and they keep kicking back.
How is it possible that fatty McCain has 899 comments on her article, and this article has eight? She must be begging everyone on her Twitter list to make a comment.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
They are what they are. Well, they also happen to be black. Should we call them "negroid terrorists"? Apparently they all hold American passports. Should we call them "American terrorists"?
Their primary motivation was apparently to make a point about Afghanistan. Is there something inherently "Islamic" about being critical of the Afghan war?
Uh, this started a little more than 30 years ago... and that is the real issue.
1.1 Byzantine-Arab Wars: 634-750
1.2 Conquest of Persia: 633-651
1.3 Conquest of Transoxiana: 662-709
1.4 Conquest of Sindh: 664-712
1.5 Conquest of Hispania: 711-718
1.6 Conquest of the Caucasus: 711-750
1.7 End of the Umayyad conquests: 718-750
1.8 Conquest of Nubia: 700-1606
1.9 Incursions into Southern Italy: 831-902
1.10 Conquest of Anatolia: 1060-1360
1.11 Byzantine-Ottoman Wars: 1299-1453
1.12 Further conquests: 1200-1800
1.13 Decline and collapse: 1800-1924
muddog,
Yes, there were WMD and we supplied the planes to transport them out of Iraq before we went in.
President Bush knew about it and did the right thing!
Read the book of Georgio Sada: The secrets of Saddam Hussein. Maybe you will understand then.
Sir, this approach to the problem of terrorism is stupid. By branding the terrorists, or "erhabi" in arabic, islamic you give away your IO points. They can don the jihadicloak when you connect them to their religion. They are criminals, pure and simple. Also, your lumping together Hezbollah and Hamas (who are both nationalistic localy oriented groups) with Al Quaeda (who is a internationalist terrorist organization) shows that you do not understand the true danger of Al Quaeda. Hamas and Hezbollah are rational actors with a government reponsibility, who despite their rhetoric are not suicidal by nature. Al Quaeda represents a whole different ideological faction, wich is based on the glory of dying and can best be compared to the Ishmaili groups of the 12th century.
Yes, the enemy we face are radical islamists, more specificaly takfiris. But not all radical islamists are takfiri, or necessarily the enemy. Do not fall into the trap of Jihad Watch and other "anti-jihad" groups and lump them all together. At the current point in time, we have a real possibility to defuse the ticking bomb of a civilization-war. If Israel has to eat some crow and loose some points for that to happen, it is still worth the price.
Labels aside, ISLAMIC terrorism is basically a default. Every time someone shouts Allahu Akbar, a bomb does not go off, but every time a bomb goes off, someone has just shouted Allahu Akbar.
Wow! Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber were Islamic terrorists? Who knew?
The #1 suicide bombers in the history of the world, the investors of the exploding vest, were the Hindus in Sri Lanka known as the Tamil Tigers.
Are you really insisting that we dignify those boneheads with a label like "Islamic Terrorists"? That's like calling the Three Stooges a Radical Anarchist Syndicate.
Let's not make a mountain out of this molehill.
Dear silly, immature, wilfully mass deluded, intellectually lazy, sub-par and uber-disingenous twerp: Thanks for verifying that the left[gotta be!] and Islam equals criminal logical fallacy and cognitive dissonance on Pavlovian auto pilot. Bravo and five stars. Excellent Marxist product sodden junk and mass indoctrination cred. Many a terrorist cell is a group of misfit creeps and clods.. UNTIL THEY SUCCEED.
Does cultural and security suicide register in your dim fatuous mind? Which part of the 1300 year long asymmetrical jihad do you not comprehend? Which part of "kill the infidel/kuffar/Jew/Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/Taoist/Secular etc, do you not understand? Which part of the Himalaya of harsh facts is proof that you and your stupid juvenile spineless denial is on track? Toodle ooh.
You are here, bub: zombietime com drsanityblogspotcom dissectleftblogspotcom thepeoplescubecom jihadwatchorg roadsassycom thereligionofpeacecom theprophetofdoomnet faithfreedomorg memritvorg nctcgov brusselsjournal shoebatcom stophonourkillingscom Lights Out Mark Steyn. While Europe Slept Bruce Bawer. Stealth Jihad & The Politically Incorrect Guide 2 Mo Islam theKoran & Crusades Robert Spencer. Brigitte Gabriel Why They Hate. [Left] Liberal Fascism Jonah Goldberg Death Of The Grown-Up Diana West etc. WWVl Norman Podhoretz. Al Qaeda Reader R.Ibrahim etc. Colonel Robert Neville blogspot com. Melbourne Australia.
Oh, and surely your "countless articles on terrorism" could be counted, don't you think? Or are they as blades of grass, or grains of sand, just like the Islamic Terrorists lurking behind every bush?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
So some more two-bit dipsh!ts are fueled and led by the FBI.. again. These guys were NOT anymore a danger than the gangs (and I think less so) that run ruffshot over our major cities.. and NONE of you seem to give a rats ass about that.
These boobs could NOT have pulled anything off. A 13yr old boy could build a bomb. Oddly these dummies couldn't. It took the FBI leading them to everything they supposedly needed. I am not saying they aren't dangerous, but this looks more like entrapment than anything of substance.
But you right wing twits will continue to jones for some more fear. You need it, like crack. Otherwise you have no purpose.
The problem is, though, that Americans have inextricably linked Islam with terrorism. You might say that we have never given the impression that we are at war with Islam, but I would say you haven't talked to many "ordinary" Americans. I am a college student at a good state school in the Midwest and I have heard in my political science classes on many occasions a student say something like "I know it seems bad to profile them, but we have to admit that almost all terrorists are Muslim." What? No, they are not. What do they call FARC? Or Timothy McVeigh? Americans already have the impression that Islam is tied to violence -- and the author of this article seems to be little different, stating that Muslim communities are often complicit in terrorist support which is a very serious accusation not based in truth.
If the FBI informant hadn't helped them get deactivated bombs they would most likely still be sitting around trying to outdo each other as to who hates Jews more.
These guys aren't Islamic terrorists, they are moronic, incompetent, bumbling fools who fantasied about being terrorists.
a bunch of disgruntled dudes go to a mosque and an FBI mole talks them into some bogus plot selling them fake weapons? come on ...... this is supposed to get the American people amped up for some action....cut the shit.
This user is no longer registered.
Hm, given the fine guidance that led us into financial crisis, the credibility of "foremost experts" doesn't cut much mustard with us "morons" these days. Especially one with such a clear agenda. Sorry, I'm not saying it's so, but I hope that Mr. Emerson is not promoting this event to drum up more need for his expert services.
This user is no longer registered.
What arrogance! Everyone who disagrees with you and this writer is a moron with a limited mind? You're tripping over your own ego.
Mr. Emerson:
the motivations for terrorist attacks are not fundamentally a part of islam they are:
1) criminal
2) political
3) irrational
judging by your article your are
1) racist bigot: as demonstrated by your desire to link islam with violence
2) cowardly: exploiting a common misunderstanding because your are in a position to do.
3) ignorant: hatred of jews is not a part of islam; just as hatred a of muslims is not a part of judaism yet they both happen. it's political. in fact, certain passages in the koran state that jews and christians should be respected as people of the book.
seriously, take some responsibility.
Mr Emerson:
I have to disagree. On the contrary, I think that the classification of such acts must strip them down to their core cause: extremism. Extremism is a generalizable human phenomenon. Just as there are extremist Muslims, there are extremist Christians and Jews. Just as some Muslims hate Jews, many Jews hate Muslims. Hatred is not a part of either religion. Historically, Muslims and Jews have worked together. Recall that Muslims gave Jews a sanctuary in Spain in middle ages. If you want to get down to the fundamentals, the Koran tells muslims to embrace Jews and Christian as "People of the Book." In fact, the Koran, like the Old Testament, calls Jews the "chosen" people. In short, the acts of extremist terrorists are not in line with a religious doctrine. So, rather than qualifying any particular act with some adjective that is more likely to foster greater misunderstanding than to bring any sort of constructive solution, why don't we just reduce all the people who do violence in the name of any belief "extremist terrorists."
This user is no longer registered.
It is amazing how quickly the clueless congregate. Of course, leftists aren't hindered by jobs and other requirements that the productive recognize, so they can spend their afternoons emailing their equally ignorant friends to post illogical hysteria in response to solid arguments and reason. Never mind that not one member of this brain trust has ever cracked open a Koran or studied Islamic history--they all know better than one of the world's foremost experts on Islam. In fact, they have expertise on every subject known to man, by virtue of the fact that thinking so makes them feel good.
I'll bet a buck that Mr. Emerson avoids the word "torture," and delights in the absurdity of the term "enhanced interrogation techniques"
Wow, Mr. Emerson has outdone himself. A bunch of lowlifes with petty crime records, having absorbed the constant barrage of propaganda from the Bush admin about a war between Islam and the West, decide they want a piece of the action. But Mr. Emerson cannot see the irony here.
Not all radicals are violent. Al Qaeda is sort of a stupid name, too, coming as "The Base" seemingly does from the "database" of names the CIA no doubt kept ever since it and the ISI trained these men for the proxy war against the Soviets. Al Qaeda is the name that seems to have stuck and now seems best for describing violent Islamic fundamentalists.
I was waiting for someone to blame this on Obama.
So if your rational is to label these men as Islamic radicals because they are connected through religion, than we as a fair and balanced nation should be doing the same to all religions, a good example would be all those pedophile priests, under your logic we should be now refer to that filth as Radical Catholic Extremists or label all people like Eric Rudolph who bomb or harass doctors at abortion clinics as Christian Terrorists, my two examples truly have a connection with religion, so why not treat everything equal, do you have issue with this?
I agree with Mr. Emerson. The first attack on the WTC in 1993 (committed by radical Muslims) was dismissed as a bumbling effort and treated as a criminal problem. That of course resulted in 9/11. What is wrong with identifying the terrorists by their names and their unifying characteristic?. Who is responsible for the attacks on Catholics in the Philippines, the attacks on Buddhists in Thailand, the attacks on Hindus in India, in Kashmir, Bali, not to mention the attacks in Israel, the attacks in Spain, France, Great Britain and the U.S.. The Secretary of DHS wants to focus her efforts against terrorism on returning veterans. What a waste of time and money in an attempt to avoid dealing with the real problem. I would support DHS efforts if it would focus on domestic prisons where there is evidence that some prisoners convert to Islam and become jihadists.
the united states deals (to islamists) terror.
in other words what i would consider (wannabe) christian extremism...
there are countless layers of culture and history that is melted into two words....
its like when my mom tells me i shouldnt be pissed at my stepfather for seducing then marrying her and getting an annulment within a year's time when i was 12.
just cause someone 'shouldnt' be pissed doesnt mean they wont be.
and one should always be certain their 'shouldnt' refers to more than their plan, otherwise a you join the 'jewish uncle toms' in the world of 'neocons'
OK, let's call these "terrorists" what they really are---a bunch of not-very-competent homeboys trying to make a statement.They are not fanatic Arabs who have infiltrated into the US and are executing a huge plan to kill thousands. These are guys who have been listening to too much Louis Farrakhan.
These are the kinds of attempts that should be easily picked up by the FBI---just like the group in Florida that was found guilty of conspiracy after two hung jury trials. These guys were locals that were offered a $50 K incentive plus a free SUV by a fake al Quaeda "agent". There was also the bunch of clowns that tried to blow up JFK airport by lighting a gas main 30 miles away.
Do Mickey Mouse plots like this warrant torture and illegal wiretaps to uncover them? No.
I'm sure Cheney and the torture enablers, fearful as they are, think these are big, far-reaching conspiracies, but that's what happens when you have a fearful, paranoid personality.
The premise of this article is a real stretch. These knuckle heads couldn't hold up a 711. Wannabes.
Mr. Emerson,
I cannot help but to point out that we are not at war with all the "bad guys" (as you have pointed them out to be) but rather with the group that was responsible for a series of terrorist attacks on 9/11. I hope you are not suggesting that we begin fighting all of the bad guys (Islamic radicals to be exact) out there because that will take us to every corner of the world. I am sure President Obama and everyone in the Intelligence community are aware of radical Islam but it serves us no good to employ such a term during our attempts to defeat Al-Queda. Your article really blurs the line between defeating all "bad guys" and what our efforts really are at the time of this war.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.