From Issue #01-41
Osama bin Laden has declared "jihad" (holy war) against the United States. Bin Laden's mouthpiece, Abdul Hai Mutmaen, noted that the declaration was an obligation upon Muslims worldwide. "We want this, bin Laden wants this and America will face the unpleasant consequences of the attacks," he said.
For the record, in addition to the many hate-filled Muslims associated with Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitic "Nation of Islam," there are an additional 1.1 million Muslims now in the U.S. on temporary visas. Many among their ranks will heed the call for Jihad issued by Osama bin Laden and his Islamic extremist mullahs. Jihad is a call to ALL Muslims — not just bin Laden's terrorist cadre — and no wide, bright line separates peace-loving Muslims from Islamic extremists.
Some are still arguing foolishly that it is "divisive" to call the September 11th perpetrators "Islamic terrorists," and that they should instead be termed only "terrorists." Again for the record, homegrown politically motivated murderers Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski were, by any fair standards, mere unappellationed "terrorists," not part of any widespread movement calling on networked cohorts worldwide to arise in mutually supportive aggressions. The ranks Osama bin Laden speaks for have as their goal a pan-Arabist union; their tool du jour for igniting the imaginations of potential Muslim followers is radical Islamic governance of that empire. (Of note, Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein was moved to invade Kuwait by a pan-Arab vision based in Ba'athist socialism; he made common cause with Islamic extremists like bin Laden only after he found himself scant in allies during the Gulf War 10 years back.)
As sage commentator Wesley Pruden noted,
The crucial distinction, which is indeed painted with a wide, bright line, is between warring views of what kind of moral creature man is. We and our anti-terror allies believe that humans are morally choosing creatures of free will, and proper governments are ordered in consonance with the freedom of citizens to do good or ill. To our enemies, the conscience must be coerced — and even "conversion by the sword" is desirable, until enough conquered submit to their will.
Of course, this also accounts for the reluctance, discussed above, of some of our overseas anti-terror allies to offer explicit statements of their opposition to Osama bin Laden ... and by extension, their opposition to his Islamic extremist adherents in their countries. Pruden continued,
John O'Sullivan, another wise observer concurred:
How, then, to deal with the truly divisive elements here at home ... before these views become deadly? Our country must exercise greater care and concern with immigration matters. The primary objective of immigration must be reinstated as assimilation into citizenship — at least for a short term permitting in only those entrants who wish to become Americans, and who support our Constitution's principles of freedom of conscience. And foreign nationals now residing here, but who are reasonably suspect of supporting our terrorist enemies, should be repatriated immediately — and only allowed return under heightened scrutiny of their backgrounds.
As our esteemed colleague Paul Craig Roberts concluded,
Such initial self-defensive measures would offer an excellent start for homeland defense. Once implemented, these protections would assure we need expend less concern on that nasty subsequent phrase, "...divided we fall."
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
13 oct 2001