Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Islamic nationalism and warfare

This is part of the thread from the post: Islam causes wars: reason #7. This has been an excellent discussion.

Anonymous replied:

"Correct, why such bad translations even coexist is an issue but that doesn't automatically label the whole religion as falsehood or warlike. That is what some humans take it as. Like you said "the mind sees what it wants to see".

Warfare is for that matter called for when no other solution is seen fit. You say as though the US is the only nation trying to solve this issue. There are many other Islamic nations trying to rid of these extremists with armed forces. It's not like we are just sitting around and letting bloodshed happen. The elimination of such a group is compulsary in order to once again show the true face of Islam. The US has been in the middle east for years now trying to fight of terrorism. What if there is another solution? As you know many groups are against the fact that the US continues to occupy the middle east. Why is that? There seems to be no more of a threat as it used to be during 9/11 so why are countless innocent lives of both sides lost everyday? Hopefully if we are out of the middle east the issue might settle down." (End comment)

I am certain that withdrawal is the incorrect thing to do. The people and organizations that attacked the United States are not going to stop their aggression. It is generally not best to give in to aggressors. It is generally better to confront, as painful as this is. These same people believe in the idea of Islamic nationalism. That Muslim land and ‘waters’ can and should be defended as if Islam is a government, in and of itself.

I like to use the example of a Catholic Church in New York. A group of militants take it over. (Take your pick of militant groups, it does not matter) Even though the church owns the land that the church is built upon, a group of Catholics from Canada, New Jersey, Brazil and Mexico do not move in and retake Catholic ‘land’. The U.S. government or local government authorities send in the proper forces to settle the issue. In other words, the Catholic Church does not physically defend the land that it owns. The national government whose sovereignty is responsible for that land has that responsibility.

The very idea of a religion fielding an army is one that faded away with the rise of the modern national government, nationalism and the professional army. The groups who are challenging this today are challenging the concept of the sovereignty of the modern national government.

Just look at the relationship between the militant Islamic organizations and the host governments. To allow this to continue is to accept the constant warfare and violence that such an arrangement must lead to. Sovereignty cannot be shared. Many wars have been fought to determine which side is to exercise sovereignty over what land. As is occurring today. This will continue until the concept of Islamic nationalism is gone and the entire world accepts the authority and responsibilities of the modern national government. This applies to ALL militant groups. Islamic groups are ones that get the most attention because they have an international reach far beyond the national borders. This makes them the greatest international threat.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Islamic argument and my response

An Anonymous person left the following comment following my post of ‘Islam causes war: Reason #7’. I believe that this comment reveals much of the problem when dealing with Islam.

"Interesting, I understand your POV of this present conflict but I respectfully disagree. For starters you are judging religon by those who follow it. As humans we are corrupt beings and yes there are those that misinterpret the teachings of their religon. If you are going to accuse the religon or Islam in this case, have enough sense to open it's holy scripture, the Qu'ran and see for yourself what the religon has to say on the matter of war. You just like the millions of others look at the small group of people that follow Islam who are disgracing the name of the religon. Yet the majority of muslims in the world are ready to convey our message with peace as it had from the start when it began. At the time when Islam flourished the church lagged behind in the middle ages, and Pope Urban II launching the crusades against Islam. If you research what happened during the time, what difference would you find from the term you take as 'Jihad' and 'Crusade'. Yes I do agree there are those that as of now are misusing humane rights to get a message across, but as a muslim I dont considered them my brothers. So the next time you try to blame Islam for the actions of corrupt individuals, research both sides before blogging biased opinions."

Seeing that the vast majority of Muslims are good and peaceful, if I was judging Islam by those who follow it, I would not be focusing upon the warfare that Islam causes. I would be focused upon the good and constructive leadership that the Muslim world is personally demonstrating to the rest of us. This is not the case. I am judging Islam by the governance that Islam created and maintains. An example: In 1944, the vast majority of Germans and Japanese were good people. This was irrelevant. We were forced to kill millions of them to put an end to it. A small ‘minority’ of people was in control and we were at war against them. However, the population DID in fact, support the armies and fought very hard and well.

War is a foreign policy. The Koran specifies in many places when and where war is justified and is to be waged. The Koran also specifies when truces should be implemented. (Please note ‘truce’ as being ‘cease fire’ as opposed to permanent peace) The Koran specifies many functions of a government. Examples: The death penalty, economic policy, foreign policy, exemption from conscription and a complete legal system. These are functions of a modern national government.

Yes, the Crusades were nasty. As wars tend to be. However, the Crusades were a response to the constant pressure from the south and eastern part of the Roman Empire. Much of those parts of the empire had already been overrun by Islam long before the Crusades began. The Crusades were a reaction to this, not the initiator. And speaking of religions mustering armies:

I find it interesting that Muslims keep bringing up the subject of the Crusades. The Crusades are a classic example of a religion fielding an army. This was not uncommon prior to the rise of the nation-state, nationalism and the professional army. This practice disappeared long ago. (Exception: Islam) Today, Islam is the only ‘religion’ that still fields it’s own army. These terror organizations are the modern version of the Middle Age concept of a ‘religious’ army. And they enjoy popular support.

Islam has no ‘lands’ nor ‘waters’ to defend anymore than the Catholic Church can defend the land that a church sits on in New York. Nations do. National armies are what defend them. Yet we hear constant comments about ‘occupation’ of Muslim land. No nation on Earth is willing to commit its armies against the ’occupiers’, yet irregular warfare is still being waged to lift the ‘occupation’. And this concept enjoys popular support throughout the Muslim world. This must end, TODAY. This concept starts wars and will require warfare to end. Islamic nationalism is the cause.

On a side note, stoning people to death has no place in the modern world. This practice is still being followed in numerous places throughout the Islamic world. Want to start a war? Do not allow enforcement of just this one concept and watch what happens.

As for my being biased, YES! As is Anonymous. We all are. One problem here is that anonymous does not see that he/she is biased as well. This can blind a person in many ways. This Anonymous person has not read the entire Koran (Or is ignoring much of it) yet he/she is stating that I need to read the entire thing through. I need to research both sides beforehand. I guess I need to ignore the 90% of the Koran that talks about warfare and governance and focus upon the ‘nice’ 10% that specifies how there is no compulsion in religion. Yes, I still need to study Islam and history more. However, Anonymous is far behind. He/she needs to study history far more than I do, and not just one version of it. He/she needs to widen the view. I like to think that I am pretty good at seeing the other side. And we as a country are pretty good at setting our differences aside. Example: The U.S.-Japanese war 1941-1945 was one of the most brutal our country has ever engaged in. Yet, 60 years later, my wife is Japanese. This is not uncommon in our country and ‘Religion’.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Nation State of Islam

Osama Bin Lauden has announced that U.S. prisoners will be executed if the U.S. executes the accused mastermind of 9/11. Osama is wielding the authority of the ‘Nation of Islam’ and is speaking to the U.S. government as an equal. If this is not a major reason for open warfare, I do not know what is.

President Obama

I heard on the radio today a quote from a politician who was saying how Obama is being fought so hard because at least in part because he is African-American. Yea, right. The race issue again.

I know and have known plenty of African-Americans. I admire several of them. This has nothing to do with the fact that I am against everything President Obama does. I do believe that President Obama is the most fundamentally anti-American President we have ever elected. Not even close. By Anti-American, I am referring to the fact that he thinks that capitalism is bad. Capitalism is the economic bedrock upon which all our culture has been based and from where our ingenuity has come from. President Obama wants to end this. His administration has taken over close to 50% of the free market economy of the United States in only 14 months. Fundamental change indeed.

President Obama stated that he wants to ‘fundamentally change’ America. He must not have been pleased with what we were prior to his administration. So he takes over half the private sector of our country. Private wealth is being converted to public funds. This will be more efficient and fair for all. This is why I am against President Obama. I am against Democrats in general for this same reason. However, President Obama is far more persistent and effective in his pursuit of the destruction of private wealth in this country. I would see this as a threat no matter what or who he/she is.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

President Obama's foreign policy

I am not certain how the success with Health Care reform will impact the foreign policy of the United States. President Obama may want to shift his attention to overseas affairs but I do not think that this will be the case. I believe that President Obama wants to have the United States out of both Iraq and Afghanistan well before the presidential election cycle begins near the end of 2011. So he does not seem to need to spend much attention on this simply because the wars will just wind down until they go away. After all, it was because we ‘occupied’ land that was not ours that has triggered so many to become ‘new terrorists’. What he fails to realize is that this is the calm before the storm.

The war is much, much too large to just go away. Far to many people and their ways of life are invested in the issues that are the basic cause of the war. A few years may go by at least in part because our enemy got a real black eye in Iraq. However, they will be back.

It is generally best to be on the offensive during wartime. If you lack the capability then assumption of the offensive will just burn out your resources. The U.S. does not lack resources. We have more than enough resources today if they are used properly. The problem is that President Obama believes that the strategic defensive is the best course. He will watch as the war winds down and does not even have to pay all that much direct attention to it. This will leave him (And our country) open to surprise attack. This may take a few years, but in any case, President Obama will not react well if and when the war explodes again.

Friday, March 19, 2010

The army of death

"We love death more than you love life." Yes, so you inflict death upon us. Well, seeing as they complain about how our military is so evil because it is more effective than what they have indicates to me that in the end, death is where they are headed and we are well equipped to help them. Japan found that out back in the 1940’s. We even used atomic weapons on them, as I am afraid that we will be forced to do again.

The army of the "Nation of Islam" is in fact, the Islamic terrorist organizations. They operate on a system of governance that no other modern nation can accept. The ‘parent’ government must be held accountable. To do otherwise is to invite attack from these organizations that hold themselves to Islamic law and foreign policy. As it has historically, Islam is fielding an army.

On a side note, I would like to add that war is merciless enough without the enemy ignoring the white flag or other accepted rules of modern warfare. Torture of the type that is witnessed throughout the Islamic world combined with the abuse of prisoners leads me to see that Islamic warfare is straight out of the 7th century. This must end today. And it will take open warfare to resolve. It is always better to be the attacker than the defender. (Unless you lack the capability, which the U. S. does NOT lack)

Once again, it is only a matter of time before an Islamic terrorist group obtains and deploys and effective WMD. The instigator will then certainly be the ‘army of death’.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Health care and representation government

The topic of this blog is warfare. However, I do go off the path once a year or so. This is one of those exceptions.

I remember Presidents who suggested what I believed to be good changes to help make Social Security solvent. The American public was dead set against it. We moved on. This example is not a particularly good one because just about everyone agrees that Social Security DOES need change, whereas the health care system in this country has been and is leading the world. (One of the few things where we still do so)

What concerns me the most is that today, our leadership is not accepting NO. They believe that the long-term benefits will be better for our country, we just have to get through the rough patch. A few years from now, everyone will see how much better off we are. I had believed that this was the case for Social Security, but I had accepted the fact that the U.S. public did not want it.

So now, if a President believes what he wants to do is really in our long term best interest, and even if the American public says NO, he/she should be able to go ahead and do it anyway? This is not representative government. He/she can change Social Security without congressional (Public) approval? He/she can take over the energy industry without our approval? How about waging war without the Congress spending the money and/or approval? If this is the case, what do we need Congress for?

A good friend of mine suggested that we would save a ton of money by cutting the number of Senators and Representatives in Congress by ½. We don’t need them as much and it will not change the representation.

What if the public and Congress disagree with the President on this issue? It should not matter because it is in our long-term best interest. The foundation of our Republic is based upon the Constitution and representative government. I guess that he really meant it when President Obama said that he wanted to ‘fundamentally change’ America. Pushing health care through against the public wishes will do just that.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Islam causes wars: Conclusion

Many of the peaceful phrases in the Koran were spoken in the early stages of the formation of Islam. The Koran specifically states that in cases where the ‘laws’ are contradicting, the later rules are to be followed. (The Koran is NOT organized by when the phrases were spoken, but by the length of the phrase) The phrases that were spoken in the later times are the ones that concern governance and foreign policy. This is where the war against the U.S. begins.

As far as the ‘Nation of Islam’ was concerned, the United States was just another infidel country. The biggest problem was the U.S. support of Israel beginning in the mid-20th century. We were only indirectly involved. In 1982 and 1983 when the U.S. troops were in Lebanon, we were violating Muslim land and had to be thrown out. From Islam’s point of view, the U.S. was thrown out. Then, in 1991, Iraq invades the national sovereignty of Kuwait. When U.S. troops moved into Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries in order to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, we became ‘occupiers’. (Even if the government invited us in. Islam does not recognize the authority of the modern national government) Ever since then, Islam has been at war against us because we continue to be ‘occupiers’.

The Islamic terrorist groups are the ‘army’ of Islam. These are not ‘extremists’ as much as they are followers of the Islamic system of governance that overrides any and all national governments. The sovereignty of Islam is being challenged. Historically, sovereignty issues have started plenty of wars.

Most Muslims worldwide are ‘good’ people. They do not want war. However, they will fight for their way of life. Like the ‘good’ southerners in 1862 and the ‘good’ Germans and Japanese in 1944, many are already fighting against a foreign influence that is in conflict with Islamic governance and ideology. Naturally, Islamic reaction is hostile. Hostility does not necessarily lead to war, but the tendency is to resist. Violence is more common at least in part because Islam has a relatively low threshold for waging war. War tends to make people choose. We can expect that many Muslims if not most, to side with Islam in any open conflict. Human nature demands this.

You may not agree with many of the reasons that I have listed as to why ‘political’ Islam causes wars. Many contain overlapping features. Yet even if you disagree on a number of these issues, this is enough to explain why peace has been so elusive in the Middle East and with Israel in particular. Too many issues within Islam are of a nationalist nature to NOT cause organized violence. It is noticeable how Islam and the modern national government do not get along. Just look at how well the governments that are host to organizations like HAMAS and Hezbollah relate with those very same groups. They may be in agreement on a number of important issues, but the government is supposed to be accountable for the actions of it’s own people within its borders. These groups are NOT accountable and this creates a very serious conflict of interest. Nationalist issues of this type have caused wars and will cause wars in order to obtain a resolution.

The issue of separation of church and state has in the past and will in the future, trigger wars. Religions cannot muster armies today like they could in the 7th century. Only national governments can raise and deploy armies. The fact that Islam is doing so today (as if we are still in the 7th century) creates national sovereignty issues that historically have taken wars to resolve. On top of this, Islam in general has a very low threshold for waging war. The Koran allows for the waging of war far more easily than ANY modern government would consider. Warfare is far more destructive today. As a result, the nation-states of today are far more powerful and numerous (making them more dangerous and more of a threat) than when Islam was born.

Notice how Zionism is a term commonly used by leaders in the Muslim world to describe the political nature of the ‘Nation of Israel’. The ‘Nation of Islam’ can easily identify with this concept because this is precisely what ‘political’ Islam is. One key difference is that the nation of Israel is a modern national government whereas the nation of Islam is not.

I have studied wars for more than 40 years. I have never studied one where so many GOOD reasons exist for violent conflict in order to resolve. Until one side or the other implements some very large changes, this war is just beginning.

I am fearful of what can possibly occur after a severe economic downturn. The war is much, much larger than what is being fought in these various conflicts where the Islamic terrorist groups (The Islamic army) are active. The U.S. is only directly involved in a few of them. A major downturn in the world economy could easily be the match that starts a major conflict. It has been a long time since the last major, world war. History has demonstrated that major wars occur every so often. On top of this, it is only a matter of time before one of these terror groups obtains and deploys an effective WMD. Control of the war can easily be lost at that point. It will become difficult, if not impossible to prevent the war from escalating. Time is NOT on our side and the U.S. government is playing for time. Wrong strategy. We are in big trouble if our President doesn't figure it out fast enough.

The sovereign ‘Nation of Islam’ IS the cause of much of the warfare that is involving the Muslim world today. To use President Lincoln’s words (With a different intent), before this war is over, the army of Islam (Islamic sovereignty) must perish from this earth. It truly is them or us. I choose US. (United States)

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Islam causes wars: Reason number 7

Separation of Church and state

Islam was designed and built as a system of governance. (In addition to being a ‘religion’.) Islam was around long before the modern national government evolved and became common. In most of the Middle East, Islam has been the ‘law of the land' since the 8th century, yet modern governments were only established in the 20th century. As a result, loyalty to Islamic laws and culture is far more established than any government that has been put in place since. This is slowly changing, but the loyalty to the ‘Nation of Islam’ is still widespread. We still hear major Islamic leadership refer to the "Nation of Islam" and the "Sovereignty of the Islamic Nation" and declaring war upon the ‘occupiers of Muslim ‘Land’. The modern world has no place for a ‘religion’ that can declare war. The modern world cannot accept ANY ‘religion’ that can field it’s own armies to protect it’s own ‘land’ or ‘waters’ from ‘occupation’. Historically, national sovereignty issues of this type have required open warfare to resolve. These are not issues that people change their minds over easily, nor quickly. (If at all.) This is why war is required to settle the issue.

Islam has no separation of church and state. This concept is being fought violently and in an organized manner. The Islamic ‘army’ (Islamic terrorist groups) is fighting for the implementation of Islamic governance and ideology. Just look at how the terrorist groups get along with the ‘parent’ government of the area where they operate. Even they don’t get along very well because of the conflict over the national sovereignty issues that separation of church and state resolves. Historically, this is a very common reason for wars being fought.

In Iraq recently, an election was held. One person who was interviewed had said that his imam had told them to go vote, so he went. If the Imam had said to not vote, he would not have gone. The Imam has greater power than the government. An example: The Catholic Church is against abortion. However, the Church as NO power to overrule the law of the United States. As long as Catholics obey the law of the U.S., they can obtain abortions. All the church can do is attempt to persuade Catholics (And all others) to NOT obtain an abortion. We need to respect religious leaders, but Islamic leaders have far more power than the modern world can accept. Imams can enforce Islamic ‘law’. Imams can field their own armies. This must end, TODAY. People do not give up that kind of power by choice. Once again, historically it has been shown that it will take warfare to resolve. Reason number seven in my list of why Islam causes wars is the lack of separation of church and state.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Islam causes war: Reason number 6

"In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses, the house of Islam and the house of war." (B.Lewis)

Not a great deal to comment on here. I would like to point out how this ‘tradition’ demonstrates Islamic attitudes and foreign policy.

At least part of the reason why Islam is so hostile is because so many of the ‘laws’ that dictate foreign policy allow for this attitude as they specify when truces are to be made and when war can commence. In general terms, wars are to be fought when Islam can win. And when Islam is at a disadvantage or losing, truces can and should be implemented. Note how truces are specified, and not peace. Peace can only be accomplished when Islam is dominant and the area in question is within the ‘house of peace’ or under Islamic control. In other words, continuous warfare until no other places exist outside of the ‘house of ‘peace’. If this does not supply a full amount of excuses to start wars, I do not know what else will.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Islam causes war: Reason # 5

Stoning people to death

I mention this as a cause of war because of the violent resistance that is being seen when attempting to get rid of this ‘law’. Riots occurred in Nigeria in 2006 because the court refused to have a woman who was convicted of adultery stoned to death. Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 40% Christian. (10% ‘other’) This ‘law’ is an important one because similar problems have been seen in other parts of the world where attempts to ignore this same punishment have triggered responses similar to what Nigeria witnessed. I guess if you can’t throw rocks at someone, then it is OK to throw rocks at something else. After all, that aggressive urge has to be fulfilled somehow.

This Medieval concept must end. The rocks must be small enough not to kill with one or two blows and large enough to not qualify as pebbles. It is bad enough to still have laws that allow for people to be flogged, but this ‘law’ is about as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment as you can get. Yet a great risk is run when attempting to get rid of it, or ignoring it. This is another demonstration of how Islam has yet to evolve with modern ideas of human thought and dignity. Resistance to this evolution is being fought with violence. It is almost impossible to stop violence without resorting to violence, particularly concerning issues like this. This can be another cause of war.