Taqiyya From The Times

Today's papers contain some amazing examples of clueless reporting by the MSM. The article that has to take the cake is the NYT article "The Guidebook for Taking a Life." This is an article that purports to identify jihadi "rules of war" by talking to selected salafists. It is nothing but complete disinformation, painting a false picture of radical Islamists - or as they would call it, taqiyya. The Times authors suggest that there is some moral and ethical code animating the radical Islamists. The problem with this bit of pro-Islamist insanity is that, in articulating the rules, the authors completely ignore the endless contradictory real world examples:

Rule No. 1: You can kill bystanders without feeling a lot of guilt. . .

Is this supposed to suggest that the Islamists feel any sort of remorse over collateral damage - or that collateral damage is even a viable concept among the Salafists? The majority of terrorist attacks are clearly designed to kill as many bystanders as possible. The suggestion that the animals that make up al Qaeda and other related terrorist organizations feel guilt over the death of "bystanders" does not comport with reality. Has anyone ever heard a single bit of Salafi propoganda bemoaning the death of innocent bystanders? The question for the Salafists in regards to "bystanders" is not guilt, its targeting.

Rule No. 2: You can kill children, too, without needing to feel distress. . .

True the Salafists argue that the collateral death of children is okay because they will go to Allah without sin and immediately age to the point where they can enjoy their 72 virgins. But the reality goes far beyond that. It begs the far more important "rules" for these animals. What about the deliberate targeting of children for murder when they are, by definition, without sin? What about the use of children as cover to be deliberately sacrificed in attacks? What about the brain washing of children to themselves become suicide bombers? There are no moral or societal limits on these animals as regards children. To suggest otherwise is deny reality.

Islamic militants are hardly alone in seeking to rationalize innocent deaths, says John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. “Whether you are talking about leftist radicals here in the 1960s, or the apologies for civilian collateral damage in Iraq that you get from the Pentagon, the argument is that if the action is just, the collateral damage is justifiable,” he says.

This is the single most offensive statement of this utterly disingenuous article. One, there are no innocents to the Islamic animals. Two, the Islamist animals target women, children, and "bystanders" for death. The term collateral damage is not a term used by Islamists. It is a term used by the U.S. military who routinely do all that they can not to kill civilians. To even suggest that there is any moral equivalence between the unintended killing of innocents by the U.S. military and the targeting of innocents by the Islamist animals is grossly distorted and absurd.

Rule No. 3: Sometimes, you can single out civilians for killing; bankers are an example.

Sometimes? Bankers? This is shear sophistry and dissimulation. The Salafists have so interpreted their religion that their are no civilians. Bin Laden justified the Twin Towers attack on the logic that all Americans, including the civilians in the Twin Towers, were tax payers and thus supporters of America's military. Omar Bakri, the spiritual guide to some of the perpatrators of 7-7, reasoned that the Koran allows the killing of non-Muslim civilians in retaliation for the killing of Muslim civilians. He then blamed the West - including the United States - for killing Muslim civilians starting with the Crusades, circa 1294. The bottom line, there is no moral prohibition on the deliberate murder of any civilian. And indeed, it would seem that the Salafists far prefer the soft targets that civilians present.

Rule No. 4: You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there. . .

From what planet did this one drop? The 9-11 hijackers were not born in the lower 48. Iraq, Afghanistan, Spain, Lebanon, Israel, and I do not know how many other countries have experienced terrorism in the very recent past, if not on a daily basis, at the hands of the foreign born jihadis. Is this the NYT trying to tell us that we do not have to be concerned with any of the foreign born Islamists in this country? Who wrote this obvious falsity? CAIR?

Rule No. 5: You can lie or hide your religion if you do this for jihad.

This one is well known. It should receive a lot more publicity however. I am aware of no other religion that explicitly condones lying in order to commit acts of murder and mayhem. That certainly should be a centerpiece of dealing with any Muslims or Muslim organizations that one has any reason to suspect may be tied to radical Islam, such as CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood.

Rule No. 6. You may need to ask your parents for their consent [to conduct jihad].

On one hand, how many times do we hear reports of captured jihadis where the parents are reported saying they cannot believe that their son or daughter could possibly be involved in terrorism. On the other hand, it would seem that many families in the Mid-East are proud when their child engages in terrorism or blows himself up along with a bunch of "bystanders." I personally think that we should hold such families equally responsible for the terrorism committed by their child. But that's just me.


Read the entire article here. Were I a cynic, I would call this the norm for NYT reporting on issues relating to terrorism. But I am a realist. So I will still call this piece of taqiyya the norm for the NYT. I do not understand how anyone pays for the suicidal fiction this paper is peddaling.