Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Islam causes war: Part IV

The House of War: 
“In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses, the house of Islam and the house of war.” (Bernard Lewis) Not a great deal to comment on here. If tradition sees the non-Islamic world as being in ‘the house of war’, then few if any excuses are required to start a war against infidels. (Non-believers) I would like to point out how this ‘tradition’ demonstrates Islamic attitudes about government and influences foreign policy.
At least part of the reason why Islam is so hostile is because so many of the ‘laws’ that dictate foreign policy follows this attitude. One example is when the Koran specifies when truces are to be made and when war can commence. Please note how truces are to be implemented, not peace. In other words, not permanent. Truces are to be broken when the situation changes to where Islam will gain an advantage by opening hostilities. In other words, the non-Islamic world can be attacked for any reason whatsoever, because it is infidel. The non-Islamic world truly is the ‘house of war’ simply because war can be waged against it any time Islam has an advantage. This is foreign policy by a ‘religion’, for a ‘religion’ and because of ‘religion’. Once again, execution of people, waging war and making treaties is the responsibility of governments. This is another area where Imams obtain authority from the ‘Nation of Islam’.
This is where Imams get the authority to declare war. Declaring war is the sole authority of the modern national government. You simply cannot have priests or other religious leaders deciding to go to war and mobilizing their own combat units. However, this was how armies were created and mobilized in the 7th century, long before the modern nation-state and professional armies. As mentioned in other issues, the very fact that Imams have this authority is in direct conflict with the concept of the modern national government. 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. Please note how 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.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Women with conceal and carry

A real catch 22 for gun control advocates: Women obtaining conceal and carry permits. The best defense against assault and rape.

While it is true that some assaults and rapes of women catch the woman by surprise where they would not have the time to take ANY real defensive action, a loaded pistol sure goes a long way toward maintaining a successful defense if given just a few seconds. (The same applies to men who are about to or are being assaulted and/or mugged.) The catch 22 comes in where womens rights are being argued. Did you see that list of 10 things women should do if threatened or attacked? The list has been removed for obvious reasons: They are not nearly effective enough, not to mention insulting. The most notable concept was no mention of a knife or other hand held weapon. Not even mace. Certainly not firearms.

I am not certain that conceal and carry for women is the best move on college campuses today, but the fact is that assault and rape is a real problem on college campuses today. Hell, it was a problem when I was an undergrad back in the early 1980's. I do know that it is such a problem today that it is worth serious consideration. Even a try out, if you will. After all, as President Obama said: “if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.”

This is a dangerous idea. I do like the fact that it would be more dangerous for would be assailants and rapists than the general population. Of course, this flies in the face of gun control advocates and their ideology. Thus the resistance to ANYTHING that allows for the constructive use of firearms. Not to mention resistance to the idea of applying force to resist force as was demonstrated with the list of 10 things women should do if attacked. Personally, I believe that mace or pepper spray would be effective as well, without being potentially lethal. But this was not mentioned in the list of 10 things. This is where I see the problem with the gun control advocates. They are against the use of ANY effective defense, so much so that they can't even think of any good ideas for conducting a successful defense against ANY violence.  

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Islam causes war: Part III

The penalty for leaving Islam is death
The penalty for leaving Islam is death. This ‘Law’ has been enforced for 1400 years. Part of the problem here is that the authority to execute people is supposed to be used only by a national government. Two ways that governments kill people: They execute their own citizens, or the government declares war and the professional army kills the enemy. Islam as a religion must not be allowed to retain this ability to terminate people’s lives. Islam implements the killing of others through the authority that Imams exercise. They can field their own militias. This is in conflict with the idea of governmental enforcement of the laws, not to mention government control of the armed forces. Even when governments enact this penalty for leaving Islam within the legal system, 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 well past national boundaries. As a result, this is an international issue that modern nations have and should go to war over. In addition, this law is a major structural problem for Islam.
The penalty for leaving Islam is death is one of the primary factors in the reasons 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 a major, basic cause. A number of other differences exist in the interpretation of the Koran. (It is human nature for people to differ) When any group interprets the law in any way significantly that is different from others, they see the other side as having left Islam. Very few disagreements exists with the interpretation of ‘The penalty for leaving Islam is death.’ This cannot do anything but assist violent behavior. 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 more of 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. Imams wield the power of governments when they can implement this penalty, along with numerous others that Islamic law requires. People and nations will fight violently to resolve these types of issues. It is about the only way to resolve them. Submission is the other. No wonder it results in violence, on both sides.

Friday, February 15, 2013

Islam causes war Part II: Jihad

Jihad: Many Muslims believe that Jihad is an internal struggle. This is supposedly the ‘greater Jihad’. However, historically this has not been the case. “For most of the fourteen hundred years of Muslim history, Jihad has been most commonly interpreted as ARMED struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power.” (B. Lewis) This is enough time for a concept to actually become culturally based. Cultural change is the most difficult and turbulent of all change. Thus it would be very, very difficult to reverse. 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. No wonder Jihad was (And is by many) most commonly interpreted as armed struggle. 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. This did not occur until Islam had been established for more than 700 years. The concept of booty as it was generally known is inappropriate with the concept of Jihad as an internal struggle. Jihad may have been intended to be an internal struggle, but the reward system in this world makes it a foreign policy. This can and has caused wars. Imams wield the power of a modern government. Jihad is one tool that gives Islamic leaders the powers of a nation-state. Jihad helps provide many Imams the ability to field their own personal militias. Another way of looking at it: If priests were able to form and lead armed combat units, many governments would have to go to war against the Catholic Church. As they should. The waging of war is the responsibility of governments, not ‘religion’. Naturally, wars are fought over issues like this one. The ‘terrorist’ organizations of today are in fact the Islamic ‘army’ in action. These very same organizations speak of jihad in the context of armed struggle. Many have declared war against the U.S. and Israel already. (Declaring war as if they are the leadership of a government) In fact, the ‘Nation of Islam’ is at war against ALL modern governments. Jihad is not the type of issue that negotiation can resolve. People will wage war to resist or resolve. Negotiation could not convince the South to give up slavery. It took open warfare to rid the United States of slavery. Nor will negotiation change the interpretation of jihad. Better health care and better economic opportunities are not going to change anyone’s mind on this issue. Economic opportunity will not revoke the authority that Imams have that enables them to field these ‘jihadist armies’, nor will it win the war against these organizations.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Islam causes war Part I
Stoning people to death. Islam prescribes a number of penalties that modern thought places into a class of barbaric relics of an ancient past. Chopping off hands, gouging out eyes, etc. I mention this as a cause of war because of the violent resistance that is being seen when attempting to get rid of this penalty. I use Nigeria an an example because it is so clear cut. 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. The Koran specifies that the rocks must be small enough not to kill with one blow and large enough to not qualify as pebbles. This medieval concept must end. 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. (Flogging should be dropped as well) 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. The elimination of stoning and flogging is being fought with violence. This is a moral issue that is similar to that of getting rid of slavery. It will be almost impossible to stop violence without resorting to organized violence, particularly concerning issues like this. This is a straightforward case of Islamic law being a cause of violence and war.
Talk about a mob mentality. I saw a video of a stoning of a young girl who finally died when a cinder block was dropped on her head. The stoning was bad enough, but the final act was actually against Islamic law. The stones are not to be so small as to qualify as a pebble, and not so large as to kill with one blow. In a mob situation, what rules can be enforced? Clearly, not even Islamic ones.
I toss in beating your wife in on this one as well. Even though different interpretations say different things, the issue is still very large in Islam. How can this be even debated? Oh! No visible marks are to be left. We are not speaking metaphorically. This is actually stated in the Koran. So it makes sense to cover the women up. Besides, this has other controlling advantages.
These 6th century ideas have come and are long gone. NO more mobs stoning people to death, or else we shoot at you too. And you would have it coming. These are good enough reasons to wage war. I rank this one as number one only as a matter of convenience, not necessarily of importance. Although this one is important enough.   

Friday, February 8, 2013

Islamic law and nationalism causes war

Ever since I was in 4th grade, I have been interested in military history. I was ashamed of this for a long time, afraid of being thought of as a 'war monger'. As time went on, I realized that I had amassed a great deal of knowledge that many others simply did not have. I began to become more interested in current events and could see problems with a great deal of analysis that I was seeing on the news. Most of my attention was devoted to what we call “Western” history and in particular modern warfare. (The U.S. Civil War to the present.) Then came 9/11/01.

Knowing only a little about U.S. engagements with Islam, (The Barbary pirates) my knowledge was basically limited to the Middle East only as far back as the formation of Israel and its conflicts with its neighbors. After 9/11/01, I began a more through research into Islam and its history.

I started by attempting to see both sides. I read a bunch of stuff by Karen Armstrong and like minded authors. I read anti-Islamic stuff, like Bernard Lewis. I found it interesting that I was having so much trouble finding much that was not leaning heavily to one side or the other. One such book was written by a member of a group that attempts to resolve differences between religions.

I found that supporters of Islam like Karen Armstrong focus on Mohammed's actions and the phrases of the Koran that talked about personal behavior, in a way similar to Jesus in the bible. I noticed that those who opposed Islam focused upon Islamic law and its application. In my studies of warfare, I have noted many excuses that are used to take violent action in the form of organized warfare. The real reasons many times are hidden, but as a rule, it does not take all that many. My favorite example is the U.S. Civil War. Slavery was the single, greatest reason for our most costly war. Other reasons like loyalty to state over Federal government contributed. Most wars boil down to just a small handful of real reasons. Islam is different.

I have studied Islam for more than 10 years now. In my research, I have found so many reasons for people to kill each other that I was stunned. It explains why so much conflict exists in all areas of the world where Islam is in contact with the rest of the world. This multi-part series I have put together is only some of the issues, but I believe it covers the most important aspects. I have identified 7 issues that I believe people will fight and kill to both eliminate and to defend. These issues are so established that like slavery, they are part of the culture of Islam. In other words, those who believe in them will die fighting for them as well as kill to protect them.  

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Our enemy is becoming more frisky

Two attacks on our embassies in the past 5 months. Embassies are national assets. No different than an attack upon one of our warships (or fleets) or military aircraft. No response from the Obama administration that I am aware of.

Actually, I favor our enemy attacking our military. Our soldiers are paid to risk their lives in engagements with our enemies. And they are well armed and trained. Now that the war in Iraq is “over” and our involvement in Afghanistan is winding down, our enemies have recovered from the black eye we gave them. Attacking an embassy is far better for them than attacking one of our armored formations.

The biggest advantage that our enemy has is the ability to 'hide' in civilian affairs. The embassies are a great target because of the interaction they must inherently have with the civilians in the country they are located. Attacking a military installation where civilians are excluded removes one of the largest advantages our enemy has. This is one of the reasons why we were winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. And this is why we are losing today. And our leadership seems to think that it is just going away.    

Friday, February 1, 2013

Potential triggers for inflation

In my last post, I discussed inflation and the very lack of it today. We are bordering on bankruptcy and it just does not look like that for most Americans. Some of the events that could CHANGE all of that
in a hurry are already in motion:

China has decided that it simply cannot continue to purchase U.S. Bonds. China changed this policy about a year and a half ago and stopped purchasing our debt. The United States has responded by having the FED purchase the bonds that China was buying. This reminds me of how the housing market got into such trouble. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought all those sub-prime mortgages. The U.S. Bonds are not such poor investments, YET. We have already sustained a drop in rating. Another is being considered. The U.S. Dollar could lose its reserve currency status. This would be a devastating loss for us. It is calculated that if this occurred, the dollar would lose 25% of its value.

What if the Fed is forced to raise interest rates? The Fed simply cannot afford to raise rates. This is because when it does so, the interest on the debt will balloon. The money due will have to be printed, the economy cannot boost productivity nearly fast enough to begin to offset.

When economists speak of something happening 'overnight', they really mean over a short period of time, such as a few weeks or months. The problem is that most people are not watching. The news media has very little understanding and even if they did, the events are subtle and not newsworthy. Until it is far too late. This is why it appears to happen overnight.