Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

Could the dominant thought patterns of Jihad, so widely promoted, be changing?

Posted Wednesday, November 11, 2009, at 9:21 AM
View 7 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • 2009.11.09 (Jolo, Philippines) - Abu Sayyaf militants cut the head off of a local school principal and leave it in a paper bag at a gas station.

    2009.11.09 (Yala, Thailand) - A young Buddhist man collecting plants is brutally ambushed and killed by Religion of Peace advocates.

    2009.11.09 (Peshawar, Pakistan) - A woman and a rickshaw driver are among three people blown up by a Shahid suicide bomber.

    2009.11.09 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - Islamists shoot and kill a 53-year-old riding home on his motorcycle.

    2009.11.08 (Rajouri, India) - A man and his wife are murdered in their home by intruding Islamic gunmen.

    2009.11.08 (Pattani, Thailand) - A young man eating in a restaurant is among two people killed in separate Mujahid shootings.

    BROTHERS IN ARMS I THANK GOD FOR YOU DAILY! Go forth with your eyes wide open and confront evil where it exist.

    Thank you for the service of protecting my family and our way of life.

    -- Posted by big daddy rabbit on Wed, Nov 11, 2009, at 6:48 PM
  • Does this mean you do not think the changes mentioned in the CNN report are real?

    If I understand what was written, most of these acts your listed are condemned by the new code. "The code's most direct challenge to al Qaeda is this: "Jihad has ethics and morals because it is for God. That means it is forbidden to kill women, children, elderly people, priests, messengers, traders and the like."

    Will this stop all of the killing, no. Will there still be in-fighting among the different sects? Yes. But is it a step in the right direction? That was my question.

    If we watch our own prime time TV one might easily think that our society is full of cruel, sadistic, drug-crazed, mentally ill, sociopathic people. The new "code of ethics" would not stop that either.

    I truly wish our country could confront "evil" on our own soil as well. Maybe not with "arms", but at least with moral fortitude.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Nov 12, 2009, at 7:34 AM
  • It brings one cause for alarm when our president and members of his administration, when out of political correctness, refuse to describe the incident at Fort Hood a terrorist attack out of fear of offending Muslims. After all, Mr. Obama had absolutely no problem with calling the Cleveland Police department stupid. If this killer had been a white christian, the words domestic extremist terrorist would have been the headline splashed across every liberally biased newspaper in the country and expoused loudly out of the mouths of every liberal pundit with access to a microphone. A terrorist attack is exactly what this was and it's about **** time people started saying it.

    -- Posted by Tim Lokey on Thu, Nov 12, 2009, at 4:12 PM
  • Steve,

    I get the code. I understand your point. I commend you for recognizing the want of some to change. Also keeping in mind that it took christians to stop the crusades. Christains also confront their own fringe wackos in the abortion debate.

    Muslims need to stand together loudly and reclaim their religion. Until specific teachings of the Koran become more tolerant of us and our way of life we will always be under threat.

    Unfortunatly, someone said war and dragged us down that road. Now, while in a war and until this war is brought to an end willfully by the enemy I stand by principle. Demoralize, humiliate, destroy and kill the enemy. Its not something for the faint of heart or of a weak stomach. Sensitivity training may be a wonderful thing in garrison, but I've yet to hear of a polite and kinder way to kill on the battle field.

    When Farrakhan and Ahmadinejad change so will I.

    -- Posted by big daddy rabbit on Thu, Nov 12, 2009, at 4:56 PM
  • Dawg gone it. Broke my own rules again. A little more focused now...

    Does this mean you do not think the changes mentioned in the CNN report are real?


    -- Posted by big daddy rabbit on Thu, Nov 12, 2009, at 5:07 PM
  • In am effort to avoid confrontation on your blog, I waited until no one else would see what I wrote before I actually wrote it.

    I am guessing that most Jihadists ultimately get their perspectives from the west anyway. We should expect them to behave only in such a way that is conducive to the objectives of their true supporters, no more and no less independent than the movements of Christian world-views throughout time and place.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 3:53 AM
  • Are you suggesting that all have abandoned this post? Well, actually, I was a little slow getting back to it. Sorry.

    IN this case, they seem to say that one strong faction of the Jihadist movement is leaning away from non-discriminating terror. I suppose they would still target military and government.

    Therefore the Pentagon would still be a target, even though women and civilians work there, but office buildings would not. Maybe a mellowing or maybe a ruse?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 1:17 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: