Sunday, February 28, 2010

Islam causes wars: Reason number 4


Many Muslims believe that Jihad is an internal struggle. This is supposedly the ‘greater Jihad’. However, historically this has not been the case. "Jihad has been most commonly interpreted as ARMED struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power." (B. Lewis)
The Koran mentions Jihad in the context of ‘internal’ struggle in about 5% to 10% of the references concerning Jihad. The other 90% concern armed Jihad and warfare. In addition, the reward for Jihad is booty in this world and paradise in the next. Booty was generally how armies were paid until the rise of the nation-state and professional armies. Jihad may have been intended to be an internal struggle, but it is also a foreign policy. This can and has caused wars.

Waging of war is the responsibility of governments, not ‘religion’. Again, wars are fought over issues like this one. The ‘terrorist’ organizations of today are in fact the Islamic ‘army’ in action. They are already at war against us. (The U.S. and Israel are the biggest targets) In fact, the Nation of Islam is at war against ALL modern government. Better healthcare and better economic opportunities are not going to defeat this ‘army’, nor will they win the war.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Islam causes wars: Reason 3

The penalty for leaving Islam is death.

This ‘Law’ has been (And is still) enforced for 1400 years. Part of the problem here is that in many cases, individuals enforce the law. This is in conflict with the idea of governmental enforcement of the laws. Even when governments enact this ‘law’, this reinforces the idea that once something is Muslim, it cannot revert back to anything else. This can be (And frequently is) applied to ‘waters’ and ‘occupation’ of land as well. This concept goes past national boundaries. As a result, this is a nationalistic issue that modern nations have and will go to war over. In addition, this penalty is a major structural problem for Islam.

This ‘law’ is the primary factor in the reason why Sunni and Shiite have not been able to resolve their differences since 690 AD. (Islam was founded in 610 AD) Because the two sides differ in the line of succession of the leadership of Islam, (A major, fundamental difference) each side sees the other as having left Islam. In many of the cases where we hear of ‘sectarian’ violence, this is the basic cause. Historically, when ‘outsiders’ or infidels are involved, Sunni and Shiite will band together to defeat the common enemy before attempting to deal with the other, which is an internal problem.

Execution of people is the sole responsibility of a modern national government, not a ‘religion’. Once again, Islam is in direct conflict with modern governance. Historically, the causes of many wars are of this type. People and nations will fight violently to resolve these types of issues.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Islam causes wars: Reason number 2


I place this issue at #2 in my list of reasons that Islam causes wars because this issue HAS triggered a war between the United States and Islam in the past. In 1804, a number of U.S. ships (Including a warship) were seized in the Mediterranean because the U.S. government refused to continue to pay ‘Tribute’. The battle cry in the US was "Millions for defense, not a penny for Tribute!". What was this all about?

For us, the issue was freedom of the seas. For Muslims, the lands surrounding the Mediterranean were ‘Muslim lands’. Most, if not all of the land that touched the Mediterranean were either controlled by Islamic authorities or else had been in the past. This made the Mediterranean an inland sea controlled by Islam, or Muslim ‘waters’. It was a stretch to charge Tribute for ships passing through these waters because the Koran speaks of land, not waters. Nor does the Koran speak of ‘passing through’. However, the nationalistic nature of Islam encourages this belief. A brief word about Tribute.

Tribute or the ‘poll tax’ is the payments of non-Muslims to Islamic authorities. (Not government, but religious authorities) Payment of this ‘tax’ exempts the payer from military service.

Taxation and conscription are two functions of the modern national government. This issue is another where Islam is in conflict with the modern nation-state. Islam was designed as a system of governance long before the modern nation-state had evolved. Even if the laws of that government allow for this, it is a fact that the origin of this ‘law’ is the Koran. This is another example of nationalism taking a back seat to the ‘Nation of Islam’.

Want to start a war? This issue has and will continue to do so.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Islam causes war (Reason #1)

Kill the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land.

An example: The Catholic Church owns the land that a church in Chicago has been built on. If any group of armed people took it over; Catholics from Illinois, Mississippi, Brazil or Canada do NOT go in and take them out. The U.S. government sends in the army, or National Guard or SWAT team or whatever. Islam has a long history of this type of action. As has been seen so often today, Islam still retains a sizable number of followers who believe that Islam overrides the modern national government. If the means for open warfare is not available, irregular warfare is the natural result. It is only the next step to become what we consider to be a ‘terrorist’.

A religion like Islam does not have ‘land’ nor ‘waters’ to defend. The following statement was declared by Imams that met in Istanbul in March 2008 is a classic example: "The obligation of the Islamic Nation [is] to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways."

Please note the use of the terms "Islamic Nation and "Muslim waters" and "Sovereignty of the nation". These concepts are common throughout the Islamic world and contribute greatly to the warfare that is common where Islam is in contact with the nation-states of the world.

As can be seen, this concept is one of the basic causes of the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict. All of Israel is sitting on ‘occupied’ land. Two additional parts of this issue I would like to discuss.

1) Once land becomes Islamic controlled, it can never revert back to anything else because it is considered to be ‘occupied’. (This is tied in with reason #3, the penalty for leaving Islam is death)

2) This would be comparable to Native Americans launching attacks upon the rest of the population because all of the land that the United States sits on would be considered ‘occupied’.

This is only one the major issues present within Islam that invites open warfare.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Islam is violently resistant to change

Seeing only what you want to see is a powerful human weakness. This can overcome intellectually honest thinking at least in part because honesty requires more work. When combined with the frustration that is a part of living with so few personal options that are presented to everyone who is Muslim it helps make it easier to move from anger to violence. To change this would require a fundamental change in Islamic beliefs and governance. Education would help, but human nature will demand resistance that will take the form of organized violence. (As we are seeing all over the Islamic world today) You are going to send my kid to an Islamic school, teaching them their ideas? This is what we are asking them to do. I would take up arms against this myself. Historically, this issue has triggered many wars. This is in part why good Germans and good Japanese fought. They fought for their way of life. This goes along with Nationalism, which evolved a long time after 610 AD when this ‘Religion’ was founded. Changing this would have to go very slow. To do otherwise is to invite open warfare. Yet change of this magnitude will take a minimum of 3 generations. The main problem here is we do not have that much time.

Repeated suicide attack had never been seen before Japan in the mid-20th century. The ideology that allowed for it to develop in such a large population had to be based upon cultural norms. To overcome the most powerful instinct in all living things on a mass basis requires strict indoctrination on a mass basis. It makes sense that the 2nd time it occurs in human history that it would be culturally based. This makes the war so large that it scares the hell out of me. As it should everyone.

Better healthcare for the individual would not have impacted Japan's suicide mentality in any significant way. More opportunities for the individual could possibly help defeat the suicide ideology today, except that human nature would overrule this in the vast majority of cases and demand resistance. Modern Islamic systems of governance can be seen to be not very efficient regarding the economic opportunities that it presents its population. The full-scale waste of the plentiful resources enjoyed by that part of the world for the past 2 or 3 generations is the proof. On top of this, the Islamic system of governance is one of the most (If not THE most) repressive in the world. It is no wonder that frustration explodes into anger followed by violence so frequently.

Islam as a political force worldwide has been in a slow state of retreat and withdrawal since the late 17th century. The end of the Ottoman Empire in 1919 was traumatic in the sense that the strongest Islamic system of governance that was in power in the world was broken up. The internal war against the modern national government is an inevitable response. A major problem is that cultural change is so slow. A compounding problem is that Islam is not a moderate system of governance.

It is only a matter of time before nuclear weapons or some other form of WMD is used. Then the war will become what used to be called a punitive war. Weapons of mass destruction are perfect for this type of war because it kills EVERYTHING indiscriminately. Today we call it genocide, although this type of warfare has been around since long before the Romans. As much as we don’t want to see it, this is as natural to humans as fighting wars in the first place. And big wars come up every so often. We can only expect the Islamic culture to react as would our own. Too many issues that cause wars are involved not to fight openly. This war has yet to really begin. If we are lucky, we can keep it small, like Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt it. It is already a worldwide war. The fact that the enemy ‘army’ is deployed as an irregular force does not change the global nature of the conflict.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Star wars of today

U.S. 'Star Wars' laser plane successfully shoots down ballistic missile for first time. President Ronald Reagan controversially proposed 30 years ago having lasers in space to bring down missiles.

Read more:

The nice thing about lasers is that you do not have to shoot ahead of the target. You just aim right at it. This system needs to be developed and if this test did not convince you, then nothing will.

I pulled this from I think that this sums up the overall situation well:

"The Obama administration had already cancelled DoD plans for a second such 747-based airborne intercept platform. Which might explain why Secretary of Defencse Gates was not the one announcing this week’s successful intercepts. But similar past policy decisions have been later overturned, such as airborne signals intercept platforms and AWACS, to name just two, once the viablility of the program had been established."

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Iran and Syria

I was recently asked the question about the war against Islamic terrorism: What else do I suggest?

Identify the enemy. Start with the known facts. Islam is at war against the modern national government. This is being seen all over the world. It is particularly active in Pakistan and Yemen, although we are seeing this in many other countries as well. Somalia is on the verge of falling to an Islamic ideology.

Islam as a system of governance has been around for a long time. Islam has plenty of legal scholars that are willing and available. Islam is also a very repressive legal system. Repressive systems are generally easy to set up and get running whenever a chaotic situation emerges. Order can be established quickly, although the price in personal choice and freedom tends to be very high. Although this is a short-term fix, human nature is that we want order and stability quickly. After all, if you are not able to eat, or people are dying, it is difficult to think about what your children will face after they grow up. We cannot make people chose. What we can do is prevent governmental support for Islamic organizations that flourish in such conditions.

The Islamic ‘terrorist’ organizations that we mainly see and hear about are the Islamic ‘army’ in action. They may vary to some degree on what part of Islam they emphasize, but in general they want to install Islamic law and an Islamic system of governance. This ‘army’ is not going to submit. They will have to be defeated openly, in battle. We will win only if we choose the battlefield and not allow them to decide where we will be hit. That will occur frequently enough. The desert is ideal for our mechanized units. And Islam was founded and spread out from the desert. It is best to fight the army of Islam there.

The Islamic terror organizations frequently work against any host government where they reside. We will do well to help these governments. Mainly, these will be internal fights, although our interests lie on the side of the modern government’s authority. Where we can be of greatest help and impact is against governments that are supporting the armed Islamic organizations that represent the Islamic army.

I have found that the best way to begin difficult projects is to tackle the easy and obvious jobs first. It is known that Syria and Iran are supporting terrorist organizations. Other countries are doing so as well, but these two governments are very obvious and influential. Syria is the easier of the two for many reasons. Before the war against terrorism is won, the governments of Iran and Syria will have been changed. I find it very difficult to believe that these changes will come without warfare. Invasion is about the only option that will succeed. Please note that I find this very unlikely due to political factors.

War does not provide very many good things to talk about. One thing that it does tend to do is define the opponents and the issues. One of the greatest problems we face when dealing with Islamic terrorism is in knowing who they are and who supports them. The invasion of Iraq ‘created’ many new enemies. I agree to a limited degree with this statement. I believe that many who supported our enemies decided to ‘go public’. Just because we had many more enemies than were previously believed did not necessarily make them ‘new’ enemies. Many joined the fight to protect that way of life. This is human nature and we cannot avoid it.
The removal of the governments of Syria and Iran will force many unknown supporters out into the open. This is the number one rule of war: Know thy enemy. If you can see him, you can deal with him. Is this not the greatest problem fighting these guys? Knowing who they are and who supports them?

If time was on our side, I do not believe that it would be necessary to force the issue in this way. However, it is only a matter of time before one of these Islamic terrorist organizations obtains an effective WMD. Most likely this will occur because of some assistance from a government. The only way I know of to stop it before it occurs is to get rid of the known governments and see what else shakes loose. War is hell. At least this way, it would be much smaller and controllable than if WMD were being deployed.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Time is NOT on our side

I pulled this from the long war journal today:
"A senior leader of al Qaeda's affiliate in Somalia has declared jihad against neighboring Kenya for supporting the weak Somali Transitional Federal Government." Read more:

These guys are the Islamic ‘army’. They wield the power of nation-states when they declare war. This also demonstrates how Islam is at war against the modern nation-state. This MUST end. Time is not on our side. It is only a matter of time before one of these groups obtains and deploys an effective WMD. Then the entire scope of the war changes. It is desirable to wage conventional war in order to prevent.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Banning the Burqa

As a general rule, I am opposed to the idea of banning anything. The Burqa represents far more than just you choosing to cover yourself with different or additional clothing do. The Burqa also represents Islam in a number of ways. Only in the one way of being a personal choice, do I see benevolent intent. In several other ways, the hostility to so many things that we deem important is inherent with what the Burqa represents within Islam.

In many ways, women are treated like chattel within the Islamic legal system. Her choices as an adult are to get married or become ‘public property’. The culture that has evolved from this idea discriminates against girls in the form of neglect. This discrimination goes past the point where death is desirable in a number of situations. A fellow blogger posted that in at least this way, it is similar to traditional Chinese. This is blatant control. Complete submission. I can see why some women would want to wear it. The culture that has created this symbol is so hostile to stepping out of line that it is dangerous to chose other options. Security is an additional issue.

It is a joke (If it were not so serious) that anyone could suggest that a picture of a person in a Burqa could pass for identification. We are beginning to see not only men who are dressed up in Burqa’s in order to defeat security, but women suicide bombers who are using the Burqa to get past defenses.

I can see why France is fighting the Burqa. A significant minority of the population of France is Muslim. The problem is that political Islam is at war against the modern national government. I believe that enough native French are seeing ‘change’ and want to attempt to constrain some of the more pressing Islamic issues. The Burqa also serves as a sign of this entire problem. Many of the issues with political Islam are of the type that historically start wars. I will support any ban on the Burqa despite my natural desire not to, if it is ever proposed within my country.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Afghanistan is just a show

The U.S. is going to send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan for a year, then we will pull out. The U.S. is already pulling out of Iraq, so why the show of force in Afghanistan? Why not just quit now? Does President Obama really believe that we will win during the year that our ‘surge’ is in effect? More likely it will be just a waste of lives and money. On paper, it looks like the strategy of the ‘surge’ in Iraq. If so, he is expecting much better results seeing as how the situation in Afghanistan is so much more difficult than Iraq. Particularly regarding terrain. No, this Afghanistan ‘surge’ is just a show. Timed politically to have the U.S. out of both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the presidential election cycle in 2012.

Politics and warfare do not mix well. The President must disagree with this statement. I believe that he misunderstands warfare so badly that he is actually dangerous. I guess we may find out during the next 3 to 4 years.

P.S. (I figure 4 years because President Obama is still blaming President Bush for things a year after he left office. Besides, my own intuition has been to hold the current President responsible for many events beginning in the 2nd year of the Presidency. I usually give the new President a break for the first 6 months to a year, particularly concerning foreign policy. By the way, President Obama’s year is up.)

Monday, February 1, 2010

China and arms sales to Taiwan

China is testing President Obama. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might not have been very convincing to the Chinese as to how the U.S. will react, although China has a history of such things. Remember the surveillance aircraft that China forced to land in Chinese territory during the first few months of President George W. Bush’s administration? How President Obama reacts should tell us (And China) a great deal. The weapons sales to Taiwan are routine to a large degree. Not as routine as our support of Israel, although I am certain that those two allies are somewhat expendable for the Obama administration. Maybe this is what China is attempting to ascertain. I am certain that China is not going to war over this issue, unless they think that they can get away with taking Taiwan without U.S. intervention. We will just have to wait and see.