Saturday, November 27, 2010

Winning the war

The strategy of the United States government fighting terrorists today is that of using the ‘rule of law’ to establish law and order and stability. The front line is shifting to the police and FBI. The military will be downplayed, as our focus is shifted into law enforcement. The main problem here is that our enemy has a ‘rule of law’ that is inherently hostile to that of our own. In order to avoid open conflict, we are allowing our enemies to maintain and even expand a ‘rule of law’ that is hostile to that of our own. The differences are just so great that they cannot even co-exist without violent confrontation. This is primarily because ‘rule of law’ is cultural. Generally, this is the way that the people within that system want to live. And these ways of life are in conflict with each other, similar to that of the slave states and the free states within the U.S. in the nineteenth century. It is the Islamic terrorists who are attempting to force the Islamic legal system upon the rest of the world. The enemy that is forcing the issue is Islamic nationalism. This confrontation can only escalate, as wars are won by increasing the violence to a level the opposition either cannot or will not match.

People will defend their way of life through organized violence. (Up to and including organized warfare) The way of life that has been established under Islamic law has to change in order to rid the world of most if not all, of the international Islamic terrorists. Change of this sort will NOT occur naturally. Even within our own country, it took the most costly war in our history (Not even close) to change the way of life of the slave owner society. That way of life could no longer be tolerated. As was demonstrated by our own Civil War, history has demonstrated time and again that change of this type will not occur without violence and warfare. So the choice really boils down to this:

Do we adopt the legal ways of our enemies, or do they adopt ours? Please note that they have the same options and we can expect the same answer. I say that they MUST adopt the international definitions of the responsibilities of the nation-state and separation of church and state that this requires. Islam is NOT a NATION. It can have no enforcement of any kind. This requires the Islamic ‘rule of law’ to change drastically, and it must change today. Islamic nationalism IS the major root cause. To do anything else is not to pursue the war at the root causes.

If the root causes of ANY problem are not addressed, the problem will only become larger as time goes on. Today, this will require offensive, preemptive warfare to enforce the elimination of Islamic sovereignty. In other words, the governments that holds Islam as the rule of law, or is supportive of Islamic forces. Islam cannot field armies anymore. Those who believe that Islam can and should must be attacked and defeated. We must attack Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and such groups directly. Syria and Iran will have to change. As shown by their actions, Syria and Iran believe in political Islam as they are directly supporting organizations that are violently fighting for enforcement of the concepts that are so hostile to us. We need to wage conventional warfare. This will force our enemies to meet our soldiers in open combat. Only in this way can the war be kept conventional. It is only a matter of time before Islamic terrorist groups obtain and deploy an effective WMD.

Eventually, many other Islamic governments after Syria and Iran may have to follow, but this would be an important start. Please note that I find this to be very unlikely. Far more likely will be ineffective action and a continuing acceleration in Islamic terrorist capability. Until WMD are deployed. At that point, I consider it to be too late. I want to keep the war conventional. I sincerely doubt that this is possible. I still believe that the issues are just too large and too many people’s ways of life are involved to prevent this conflict from becoming World War III. After all, once WMD are deployed, what else can we and our enemies do except continue to escalate? No truce will end this matter, as has been shown by the countless truces in the Middle East.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Gitmo detainees to be held in jail

I posted this 4/2/09 and thought it appropriate after the recent court ruling:

A jail suitable for Gitmo detainees is supposedly in Alexandria, VA. A move here will relieve the U.S. of the international burden that Gitmo represents. However, I can see Islamists seeing this as a victory. Having their captured men near Washington D.C.? This is next to and inside the political capital of the infidel enemy. This will give them a much greater status than we should give. Despite assurances to the contrary, politics will play more of a role here, distorting the importance of issues.

Jail is NOT where we want to place the 21st century versions of the pirates of the 16th century. They were generally hung from the nearest yardarm. Today we cannot do this. An island with complete isolation is about the closest way without executing them. Placing them into our jail system opens us up to additional assault from within. Jails are ALWAYS filled with people with revolutionary views. The idea behind a jail is to hold someone who is dangerous and rehabilitate him or her to the point where they can be released into the public and do no more harm. A few of the detainees at Gitmo may be rehabilitated, but the majority is not. It would be like taking Japanese soldiers in 1944 and attempting to rehabilitate them while the war was still going on.

The point is that these men will use the opportunity to convert others to their cause. And jail is the perfect place for them to obtain a receptive audience. If anyone believes that we can control this, they do not fully comprehend the commitment these men have, nor of the support around the world this effort would be receiving. Remember how Germany assisted Lenin in his move back into Russia? They needed him to stir up trouble for Russia during World War I. He helped trigger the Russian Civil War and Russian withdrawal from World War I altogether. It almost won the war for Germany. It caused incalculable problems in Russia for generations afterward. If it can be done, our enemies today will not hesitate to do it. We will be making a mistake to assist them in anyway.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Civilian enforcement against Islamic 'extremists'

In the United States, we have very few ‘extremists’. Organizations like the KKK only have a miniscule percentage of the population that agree with their ideology. One major problem in the war today is that many in the U.S. believe that Muslim ‘extremists’ are very few, as we have here in the U.S. In addition, support for the "KKK" type organizations in the U.S. is also limited to only a few. This would lead anyone who follows this line of thinking to believe that civilian police enforcement agencies are the best way to fight them. This is a vast mistake. The police will NOT win this war.

One example is the woman who was beheaded in Buffalo in February 2009. She had a restraining order against her husband. Even though the threat was known and even acted upon, the police were unable to prevent her murder. A basic problem is that until a crime has been committed, the police cannot take action. And even then, they lack the resources necessary. Then we have to consider the percentage of the population that is a threat.

A Minnesota man was the attacker in a suicide bombing in February 2009 in Sudan. If we took a percentage of the overall population of the U.S., this would be an isolated incident. However, if we use the percentage of the population of the Muslim community that he belonged to in Minnesota as a base, we can see a much greater threat. Remember, in the U.S., the number of Islamic ‘extremists’ and people who support the ideology can be expected to be a lower percentage of the Muslim population than what we would find in an Islamic country, like Saudi Arabia. And even within the U.S., the percentage of Muslims who agree with at least some of the ideology of the ‘extremists’ is dangerously high. This is common throughout the world where Muslims have migrated. Civilian enforcement agencies are unequipped to handle this, as is being shown by the violence that is beginning to occur in Europe and is already present throughout the Islamic world.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

"We submit to God, no one else."

I read the following quote recently by a Muslim woman who made this point: "We submit to God, no one else."

I find this revealing in a number of ways. One is the idea of submission. Please note how this attitude will encourage one not to adapt to any new environment. Submission is giving in, so why would immigrants (who believe that they come from a legal system that was set up by God) submit to the new culture and environment (Set up by humans) they now live in? In addition, how could anyone expect someone to prosper in the new environment with this attitude?

Implied in this quote is the idea that Islam as a form of governance trumps all the governments in that the Koran is the direct word of God. Seeing as she submits only to God, then it is implied that she submits only to Islamic law, which is spelled out in the Koran. Seeing as God set up the Islamic system of laws and government, they are perfect and not changeable. This attitude is commonly seen throughout the Islamic world.

If this person who was quoted believes in religion as we in the 'West' see religion, we would understand that she is talking about personal behavior, not government. However, Islam IS a form of government with a complete legal system. As such, it is implied that she will not submit to the new rules imposed by a different government. (Other than Islam) And that she will actively work to make the new environment change into one that is 'submitting to God'. In other words, the adapted country must submit to the government and legal system of Islam.

The spark for violence is that Islam is a complete way of life. I have studied the biographies of thousands of soldiers. They became soldiers to protect their way of life. History is full of wars fought because of change to way of life, or threatened change to way of life. This is a major contribution to the many wars and violent confrontations where Islam is in contact with the rest of the non-Islamic world. This is primarily because Islamic way of life as spelled out in the Koran and Islamic law is hostile to just about everything else. If you have any shred of doubt, do not take my word. Look at Islamic law. You will not need to look all that closely.

Saturday, November 13, 2010


A friend and I had a discussion about some of the reasons for the war. Unfortunately, I did not present my case very well. I DID state the issue of stoning as one of the reasons for war. Both my friend and his wife disagreed. After all, why would anyone go to war over stoning?

I used the example of slavery. Slavery was and is morally wrong. However, I am also a firm believer in the right of other countries and cultures doing what they deem are correct, even when the ideas conflict with my own personal values. As long as they are not forcing their ideas and system upon others, they should be able to live their lives as they see fit. The problem here is that slavery is one of those human issues that do not sit still. The South rose up and fought the U.S. Civil War because President Lincoln had stated that he did not intend to allow slavery to continue to grow. Any new states admitted into the Union would be free states. Time was now against the South. As time went on and new states were admitted into the Union, the South’s political position would only deteriorate. The best time when they where the strongest to resist was right then. So they acted. I consider stoning to be a similar issue.

Stoning is an issue that is forcing submission. The person who dies is not the entire target. People can be executed in many ways. Stoning is particularly painful and brutal. This is so that others will not do what they did. It is a public lesson. Stoning also allows the public to become directly involved. The public themselves can throw rocks. Stoning is designed to force compliance; or else you will be the next one. This attitude is one that like slavery must be imposed upon others. I would expect that if half the U.S. allowed stoning and the other did not, we would eventually see another situation like 1860 where the country was divided and would likely go to war. Do not agree?

I know that this would not happen, but let us assume that a bill is passed in the U.S. Congress that would allow for stoning. It would be over my dead body before I allowed this practice in my country! No way in hell would I go along. In fact, I would literally take up stones! I WILL show up at a stoning and start throwing the rocks at the people who are throwing them at the victim! Then the knives would show up, followed quickly by firearms. This is why I say that stoning causes wars. If some organization began to stone ANYONE to death in this country and my government did not take violent action, I would have to. How can we expect others not to? And those who are against stoning are wrong for taking even violent action? In any case, we would have a war on our hands.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

America is NOT at war with Islam

President Obama made this statement Tuesday when making a speech at the University of Indonesia. President Obama has said this before. Here we have the leader of a modern nation-state addressing the people of another nation and telling them that we are not at war against them. There is no question that President Obama was NOT speaking about the United States being at war against the nation of Indonesia. He is speaking about the "Nation of Islam". The thing that bothers me most about this statement is that President Obama is addressing Islam as if Islam were a national entity.

The United States is a sovereign government. As such, it may wage war against other sovereign governments. Who else could President Obama be referring to except the government of Indonesia? The only other entities that can possibly be involved are Islam as a form of government that the U.S. CAN declare and wage war against. President Obama is attempting to assure the population of this national entity that we are NOT (And NEVER will be) at war against them.

To recognize Islam in this way is very dangerous. After all, governments CAN wage war against each other. This implies that Islam has the authority to wage war. NO! Wars have been fought to decide issues like this. And the United States is NOT at war against the idea of Islam as a form of government? A major problem here is that Islam as a form of government, IS at war against the United States. Islam does not recognize ANY modern national government, or any of its responsibilities and authority. Then who the hell ARE we at war against? I thought that these "Radical Islamists" want to install Islam as a government.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Origin of Islamic terrorism

Like many other Americans, after 9/11, I began to take a much closer look at Islam. The more I studied Islam, the more that I understand where Islamic terrorism originates. It took a few years. However, I can't expect anyone else to go at the same pace that I went.

I have noted the use of the term "Good Muslims". This is a mistake. Not that it is incorrect. More that it does not matter. "Good Southerners" fought for slavery. "Good Germans" and "Good Japanese" fought for aggression in World War II. The very fact that people are "Good" people is not vitally important. What is important is that Muslims worldwide are NOT pressing their governments to wage war against Islamic terrorism.

Many Muslims support HAMAS and other Islamic nationalist organizations, even if not openly. If 'fundamentalist' Muslims were as small a percentage of the population as 'Fundamentalist Christians' are in the U.S., these terrorist organizations would dry up. They would scarcely be around at all. How many KKK type organizations do we have here in the US? These organizations are certainly not nearly as powerful as Islamic ‘fundamentalist’ organizations. The percentage of the population that actively supports the KKK and similar organizations are nowhere near the percentage of the Muslim population who supports Islamic terrorist organizations, nor do the ‘Western’ terrorist organizations obtain nearly the same amount of dollars. In no way can we believe that the effectiveness and impact of the KKK and ‘Christian terrorism’ is anything similar to Islamic terrorism. Let’s compare on a more obvious level.

To compare the KKK and HAMAS as armed forces is ridiculous. The firepower of HAMAS and Hezbollah and how many other Islamic organizations compared to the tanks and artillery of the KKK? Yes, and we have priests forming and leading combat units in this country. These units wage war to rid us of ‘occupied’ Christian land, and mobilize an irregular force to protect Christian ‘waters’? The Catholic Church is NOT a national government. It does not attempt to behave like one. The "Nation of Islam" certainly acts like a government, and millions of Muslims appear to believe that it is a government.

Throughout the world, Muslims wage war to protect the national interests of Islam. This is the actual root of the many problems. The source of Islamic terrorism is Islamic nationalism.

P.S. The world cannot continue to accept a religion that has followers that believe and behave like the ‘religion’ is a national government.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Islam causes wars: Conclusion

Most 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 mainly concern governance and foreign policy. After all, this is when Islam held the power of government. This is also 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. A big change occurred during the mid-20th century with the U.S. support of Israel. Even then, the United States was only indirectly involved. In 1982 and 1983 when the U.S. troops were in Lebanon, we were violating Muslim land directly with our ground forces and had to be thrown out. From Islam’s point of view, the U.S. was successfully 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. Bin Laden is an excellent example. He believes (as do many others) that 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 toward violence simply because the human frustrations that Islam imposes upon its followers requires an outlet. Anger is one of the few emotions that appear at least to an outsider, to be acceptable. Anger easily leads to violence. In addition, violence is more common at least in part because Islam has a relatively low threshold for waging war. War tends to make people chose. Most will naturally chose the side that they live with and understand. (Even if evil, like slavery) We can expect that many Muslims if not most, to side with Islam in any open conflict. Human nature demands this. This helps explain why so many others believe that we are creating new enemies by our actions ‘over there’.

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 Islamic 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. The nation-states of today are far more powerful and numerous. As a result, warfare is far more destructive today. This makes war much more dangerous and more of a threat to each governmental body than when Islam was born, when governments as we know them today did not exist at all.

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 can only be 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. After all, escalation is generally how wars are won. 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) Naturally.