Now Playing on JYB Films

Anatomy of the Comic Jihad


Movie File Host
YouTube YouTube
Putfile Putfile


Movie File Host
YouTube

The Meaning of Taqiyya







button02b
fpawbn
August 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
$1 Shipping for 4 days, only at Overstock.com!
button
Archives

Content Staff
Technical Staff
credit where due
This site is still alive and kicking thanks to the generosity and talents of Alan M. Carroll (aka Annoying Old Guy). Without him, the JYB would still be suffering with Blogger's bad code and long-term archive loss.
Powered by
Hosted By
Anti-Junk: 6245 sources banned.

The Mythical Shield of Ideological Incompatiblity (UPDATE by See-Dubya)

How many times have we heard those opposed to the Global War on Terror tell us that it was impossible for Saddam and Al Qaeda to work together because of their ideological differences? I'm not claiming here that their working relationship was significant at the time of the invasion, but I doubt that differences in ideology had much to do with it. Imagine the ideological differences between these groups, for example:

Islamic extremists embedded in the United States — posing as Hispanic nationals — are partnering with violent Mexican drug gangs to finance terror networks in the Middle East, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration report.

"Since drug traffickers and terrorists operate in a clandestine environment, both groups utilize similar methodologies to function ... all lend themselves to facilitation and are among the essential elements that may contribute to the successful conclusion of a catastrophic event by terrorists," said the confidential report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.

I'm pretty sure that the principles of Islam are opposition to everything the Mexican drug cartels stand for, but that hasn't prevented the establishment of an expedient relationship between the two.

So I draw little comfort from pundits' assurances that ideological differences will deter Islamic extremists from partnering with anybody. Even Saddam Hussein.

UPDATE by Seedub: Geoff beat me to the punch on this article, which you should really frickin' read because it's got drug dealers and terrorists and WMD's and illegal aliens running who knows what over the Mexican border. Every right wing blogger out there ought to be able to come up with something about this. I also notice it is by Sara A. Carter, understudy/sidekick/colleague of JYB Platonic Reporter-Crush Audrey Hudson.

Now, let me mock Geoff a little for his naivete. Islamist terrorists sell drugs all the time. The Taliban does it now and--although this isn't really part of the conventional wisdom--did it before September 11. Originally they tried to stop the opium harvest but the people threatened a revolt, so instead they justified taxing the trade by requiring that the drugs left the country to go poison the infidels. Allah ought to be fine with that, they thought.

Furthermore the Madrid bombers traded hash to Spanish miners for rent and stolen explosives.

I could list more--e.g. this guy--but the point is the connection between drug traffickers and terrorists isn't just some new iteration of the this-is-your-brain-on-drugs scare campaign. It's well-documented and it's serious, and our borders remain idiotically, inexcusably vulnerable to it.

MORE from See-dub in this post from May.

Post to del.icio.us

Posted by Geoff on August 8, 2007 1:16 AM
Trackbacks: View (4)Ping
Comments

“I’m pretty sure that the principles of Islam are opposition to everything the Mexican drug cartels stand for, but that hasn’t prevented the establishment of an expedient relationship between the two.”

You’ve touched on the bottom-line ethic of Islam: ‘good’ is ‘whatever benefits Islam’ contra the Christian ethic of ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ Robert Spencer talks about this quite a bit as well. Sunni groups like Al Qaeda will still take aid from Shia Iran (whom they consider to be Rafidite dogs) if it means helping the jihad against the infidel. Of course, our government could exploit these differences to our advantage, but they’re too busy trying to portray Islam as a religion of peace.

The taliban was irradicating afghanistan’s poppy fields. After the overthrow of the taliban, the CIA got what they wanted—the return of poppy fields. Drug sales (and arms sales) is how the CIA funds their projects.

There’s all kinds of things you’ll learn if you pay attention.

Posted by Robert on August 8, 2007 10:48 AM

The taliban was irradicating afghanistan’s poppy fields.

The Taliban suppressed opium production for one year. One. Here are the opium production levels:

Year…Hectares…Tons
.….…..Farmed…Produced
2000.…82000,,,,,,,4000
2001.…8000.….…..185
2002.…74000.……3400
2003.…80000.……3600
2004.…131,000.…4200
2005.…104000.….4100
2006.…165000.….6100

There’s all kinds of things you’ll learn if you do a little research.

And that year was a drought anyway. Why shouldn’t the Taliban take credit for it?

What they did was convert the opium into heroin and warehouse it. (Raw opium is perishable; morphine and heroin aren’t.) When 9-11 happened all kinds of Afghan potentates cashed in their rainy day funds—in bags of little white powder.

See-Dubya, I’m worried that some of your sentiments suggest an intolerance of the tenets of the Islamic faith. I see a lot of this on right-wing websites, and I just feel I have to say something when you go too far.

How would you like it if someone disparaged your religion?

Brewfan:

You should have done some research before you read those websites.

This is from a DEA report?

Lots of credibility there…

Posted by Jeff on August 9, 2007 8:19 AM

The Taliban suppression of heroin was in some ways a backward slap at us - heroin production means heroin sales in the billions, which means laundered money, which means bank profits.

But the notion that terrorist extremists will partner with drug cartels is not that surprising; it’s pretty historical. That’s why the CIA has gotten involved in so many sordid back-alley drug connections, over time; drugs are a huge source of funding and even political power that flows outside of public sight, and so offers a lot of channels for both our enemies and us to influence events from behind the sciences.

And a bottom line all around, for both us, those we like to think of as being on our side, and those who have declared themselves our enemies: it’s all about money and resources.

Also it’s worth noting that our allies in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance, appear to have quite an interest in heroin as well:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,605618,00.html

There are no angels here, only humans.

Er, 5:52 should read “influence events from behind the scenes”.

The Christian religion relies heavily on the old testament’s Ten commandments as its moral compass. One of those commandments is Thou shall not kill. Yet we as a “Christian Nation” with all Christian presidents, have killed millions of people all over the world over the history of our country. The commandment does not say “kill only in self defense” or in revenge. It is quite uncompromising in it’s wording. Jesus suggested turning the other cheek when accosted by an enemy. Our “born again Christian” president has rewrote that to read ” If thine enemies smite thee, go find someone who kinda looks the same, and beat the holy f%#k out of them”. Apparently the religious beliefs of those with power are mostly just believed in the church, or mosques or synagogues,and abandoned in actual practice.

Posted by nervousrex on August 10, 2007 8:22 AM

Actually, nervous, that’s a mistranslation in the King James Bible. It’s really “Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder”.

Which means unlawful killing. Big difference.

Post a comment