[Mr. Knapp:] “Of course, canonical Islamic doctrine also specifies certain behaviors for Ramadan, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority of Muslims don't sneak a smoke or a sandwich during daylight hours, or swill bourbon and get laid when they are visiting the "decadent west."”

True, but essentially irrelevant. The problem we face is based in that Islam is invoked by Muslims so they can gain honorability within its community. And they do. It’s like a German invoking the Mein Kampf or Der Sturmer propaganda as a justification to bait a Jew. (Of course a Nazi could be hypocritical and, say, fell in love with a Jewess, of course.)

[Mr. Knapp:] “Most Muslims do not dream, day and night, of embarking on a counter-Crusade to conquer earth for Allah. They have more important things on their minds -- like, for example, living.”

Yes. As the majority of Germans and Japanese did in 1942. I am talking about Muslim ideas, not Muslim individuals.

[Mr. Knapp:] “That thing is "look out your window -- see the guy in the chocolate chip uniform carrying an M-16? He's an American, he's an infidel, and he's in your back yard."”

The stress should have been put in the “he’s an infidel” part. That’s the central point, as the concept of private property (implicit in “your backyard”) is not Islamic. Moreover, there are American Muslims, which BTW are very valuated by the Umma (the global community of Muslims) from a strategical point of view, for obvious reasons.

[Mr. Knapp:] 'That's why, for all intents and purposes, Islamist terrorism against the US simply did not exist prior to 1993.'

[Joel Català] "False. In example, ask Jimmy Carter and his employees in Teheran. Or ask the Lebanese Christians (did you ever hear of Bashir Gemayel?). Or ask African blacks neighboring Muslim regions (the Darfur genocidal jihad is not recent news at all). Or ask the Copts of Egypt. Or ask the Armenians."

[Mr. Knapp:] 1. The Iran embassy hostage situation was incidental to Islamism. Iran had a revolution.

Still, that was an Islamic revolution. You can’t deny that point. A point that informs us of the appeal of Islamic ideology even in a basically non-Arab country.

[Mr. Knapp:] 2. Last time I looked, Lebanon was not one of the several states, nor was Bashir Gemayel an American citizen, nor was his Christian Falange Militia a branch of the US armed forces.

Sorry, I wrote it deficiently. my point here was that the Lebanese “civil war” (in truth, another jihadist war against non-Muslims) was before 1993. Lebanon was a mainly Christian state trying to be built in base of equality before the law between Muslims and non-Muslims. That was not accepted by the Umma, and Muslims from all over the Middle East (mainly from Syria and the disputed territories controlled by Israel) flowed into Lebanon to destroy the then existing Lebanese state.

[Joel Català] "If they did not attack before is simply because they were weak. Then, oil money emboldened them."

[Mr. Knapp:] Funny how, even though the oil money has been flowing into Arab coffers for more than half a century, the beginning of the attacks correlate exactly in time with the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, and with Islamist warnings that their continued presence there would be considered a casus belli. William of Ockham says you're wrong.

Of course, they waited for a strategically appropriate moment. They are not naive at all.

Still, the oil money is an instrumental factor.

And, still, the Islamic fascists will always resort to the Koranic verses in order to justify, in its canonic terms, the slaughter of infidels, apostates, or “bad Muslims”, both in “Muslim land” and in freer lands.

Regards,

 
Joel Català