Friday, March 29, 2013

Islam causes war: Reason # 8

Islamic nationalism.

This is actually a combination of all 7 in the list. This is where “Muslim waters” comes from. Mosques are considered to be Muslim land. Like an embassy. But who does a national government negotiate with? Imams have the authority of a national government as if he is a nation state. It is like dealing with the Indian tribes in 19th century North America. Today's Imams are the “priests” who are forming and leading their own combat units. This cannot go on into the 21st century. On top of this, Islam is not very accommodating.

Even Saudi authorities are not Islam. Remember that battle when Saudi authorities had to storm that mosque? Mosques are embassies of Islam. A large practical application is how Imams have the authority to declare war. Imams have the authority to issue death warrants into ANY country in the world. Hard to negotiate without using violence in self defense. How else would you deal with a foreign entity that CLAIMS that it should and intends to kill one of your civilians? Justification to attack is rarely needed anyway as Islamic doctrine has plenty of room for lots of violence against it's opponents. Islam tends to hit first after they have been 'offended'. They see it as hitting back at the any number of insults they have suffered. No real excuses required. Justification for war is easy under these circumstances combined with the relative low level decision making Imams represent on a global governmental scale. Combining with nuclear weapons is only a recipe for disaster.

Islamic nationalism is medieval in almost everything. One example is in the medieval behavior of the army it is fielding. Another good cause for war that is left out of the general conversation. If not for anything else but the sheer barbarity of the enemy. You can beat your wife as long as no visible marks are left. Just what can you do to your enemy? (Answer: ANYTHING) As good a reason in and of itself for waging war. Islamic nationalism causes war. It must go the way of the do-do. A reversal to Abraham Lincoln's famous quote: Islamic nationalism must perish from this earth. And don't think for one moment that any attempt in this will NOT cause open violence and warfare.      

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Tax the rich, as long at it's not me

This Cyprus deal is a real red flag. Deposits over 100,000 Euros will pay an UNSPECIFIED amount to pay for the bailout. The problem is that this is outright confiscation. If this works, it will enable others to try it out and is it not popular to “make those who can pay, pay”? Desperate situations call for desperate measures and Cyprus is in a desperate situation.

This tax the 'rich' is an easy sell and yet strikes at the core of capitalism. Either you believe that you are better off under a system where you control more of your fate, or else you want to be able to feed off the work of others. Put it to a vote? Of course most people will vote for more goodies for themselves. Hence the danger to our representative government in the first place. Once a government can just take whatever it wants, the next step is to set itself up so elections are of no real consequence.   

Friday, March 22, 2013

Islam causes war: Reason #7

Kill the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land.
This will cause a war EVERY time. 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, form combat groups, negotiate with foreign governments for arms and supplies and then move in to 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. This was how armies were fielded prior to the rise of the nation-state and the professional army. 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’ or ‘waters’ to defend.
The following statement that 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”. Governments declare war against other governments. The concept of Islam as a national entity is 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. Today, Islam is fielding an army. No wonder violence and warfare is so common throughout the world where Islam is in contact with other national entities and culture. Two additional parts of this issue I would like to point out.
1) Once land becomes Islamic controlled, it can never revert back to anything else. Otherwise, it is considered to be ‘occupied’. Their is no time limit on this 'occupation'. The Islamic law about the penalty for leaving Islam is death is instructive. Islam has lots of death penalties. You can't get any more one-way than death. Another example of how Islam is a one way street. Once you are in, you are in for life. This same concept applies to “Muslim land” and “Muslim waters”. 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. As are many other parts of the world, like Spain and the Balkans.
2) This would be comparable to Native Americans launching attacks upon the rest of the population of the United States because all of the land that the United States sits on is considered to be ‘occupied’.
I list the killing of 'occupiers' of Muslim land as number 7 of the issues within Islam that causes open warfare.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Palestinians tear down Obama billboard

Palestinian complaints of a lack of 3G technology was one excuse to tear down a billboard put up prior to Obama 's visit to Jerusalem:

I think this is a pretty lame excuse to fight and kill people over. The hatred expressed obviously points to the problem as being much deeper.

President Obama is philosophically more like the Arabs than we are. Yet he is an apostate because he denies that he is Muslim. (At least to the American public) At the same time, his father was Muslim. This automatically makes him Muslim. He must have left Islam. (Unless lying about it, which will exempt him although the Palestinian public does not seem to be buying.) The penalty for leaving Islam is death. You do not argue with Islam. This is why the Palestinians are no friend of President Obama, nor will he ever be able to have Palestinians work with him to help settle any issues. 

This 3G technology bull is a classic example of ANY excuse to hate and kill over. This is Islamic nationalism at work. This is my reason number 8 as to why Islam is the cause of conflict and warfare. (I will go into detail when I reach #8 in the series on reasons why Islam causes war)      

Friday, March 15, 2013

The probability of nuclear attack is higher today

I believe that the possibility of a nuclear attack upon the United States is as high or greater than it has ever been. The threat from the old Soviet Union during the Cold War was massive. A nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union could have arguably ended human life on this planet. At least set it back 500 to 1000 years. However, at the point where nuclear war was most likely, (during the Cuban missile crisis), the Soviets proved that they wanted to live and let their grandchildren grow up. The Soviets literally 'turned their ships around' and avoided the war. Today, the threat is not nearly as massive, but it actually is more likely to occur.

The threat of a nuclear attack upon the United States is greatest from rouge states or Islamic organizations. North Korea comes to mind first. N. Korea is constantly threatening South Korea and the U.S. North Korea has even launched small scale attacks, the sinking of the S. Korean destroyer a couple of years ago comes to mind. North Korea has said that they will launch a nuclear attack upon the U.S. Because of the sanctions that we are helping to apply. They see this as an act of war. N. Korea just may back up this threat with action, but I believe that this is less likely to happen than a nuclear attack from an Islamic organization that was able to obtain nuclear weapons.

The Islamic threat in some way resembles the threat of Japan back in the 1930's and 1940's. The greatest similarity that I see is the repeated suicide attack. Japan initiated this method of warfare for only the first time in all of recorded history. They did not organize this until later in the war when it was clear that they were losing and it was their best chance. Islamic governance and nationalism has been in a state of decline since the late 17th century. When Israel was formed, this represented a clear and present danger for the simple reason that it is so close to the epic center of Islam: Mecca and Medina. Judea was the first area outside of Saudi Arabia to be overrun by Islam back in the 8th century. These two facts make it imperative that Islam defeat Israel and lift the 'occupation' in order to protect Mecca and Medina. In other words, Judea is similar to the 'inner defense perimeter' that Japan had established. After the fall of Saipan in June 1944, Japan initiated the repeated suicide attack organizations. They were unleashed during the battle for Leyte Gulf the following October. The time frames are different, but after more than 20 years and 4 conventional wars, it became clear that conventional warfare will not dislodge Israel. Islam then initiated a similar desperate reaction beginning around the time of the Munich Olympics in 1972. As with the Japanese attacks, repeated suicide attacks from the Islamic world has continued to increase in intensity and frequency. One major reason is simply because in both cases, they are seen as being much more effective than anything else that is available. Deployment of nuclear weapons would be a natural step to take.

The very fact that repeated suicide attack is being seen today represents the greatest threat to the use of nuclear weapons or any weapon of mass destruction today. The very use of the tactic gave Japan and Islam a strength that they had lost. The loss of life was incidental. The effectiveness of the method was all-important. The mind set in the culture that spawned these two occurrences are similar. This is where the greatest probability of nuclear attack comes in.

It took the first nuclear attack to end the first occurrence of repeated suicide attack in all of man's history. The two are linked together forever. And it makes sense. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate punitive weapon: They do not discriminate. Nuclear weapons kill and destroy everything. The perfect weapon for anyone bent upon killing as many people as possible with little to no regard for the consequences. Any of the organizations that deploy suicide attackers is not going to hesitate to use any nuclear weapons (Or any WMD) that they are able to get their hands on. What is scary is that this is only a matter of WHEN.  

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Islam causes war Part VI (Tribute)

Tribute or ‘poll tax’ is the payments that non-Muslims make to Islamic 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 the ‘host’ 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’. I place this issue at #6 in my list of reasons that Islam causes wars. I did this 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 the Muslim pirates, 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. After all, Tribute is a combination of two functions of government.
This is actually one of the places where Islamic governance authority can be made to be in agreement with the authority of the nation-state. (Actually, the other way around) Naturally, it discriminates against ALL other religions. Examples abound throughout the Muslim world. This is another appeal for the 'Nation of Islam'. This nationalist link is the key as to why I believe that it causes war because it goes far beyond national boundaries. Islam discriminates against other governments in the same fashion. This has been a cause of wars in the past and will continue to be so in the future. I cannot see any other result except on a temporary basis. 

Friday, March 8, 2013

It really does matter

Secretary of State Clinton, in response to attacks about how she handled Benghazi, said that it did not matter if some people walked around and decided to attack Americans or reacted to a video. The people were still dead. Yes, Mr. Secretary, it does matter. Because it was neither and both you and President Obama knew it. In other words, you lied about it. And are still attempting to lie about it.

No wonder she became angry. Anger is all she has left to defend herself with. I guess it was OK for her husband to lie to her about all the affairs that he had. I have always felt that was between the two of them. And I understand how much people give up to be public figures. Politics is a tough life, and I get that too. But this was an attack upon the sovereignty of our country while she was on duty and she lied about it. And her boss is no less culpable.

Only three days before the attack, President Obama had proudly announced that our enemies were on the run. Their leadership had been 'decimated'. It would look badly on him if only a few days later that very same enemy launched a coordinated attack upon the government of the United States. So they lied about it to blame some obscure video. For something like two weeks they claimed that this was the source of the attack when they knew better. Our ambassador was killed and our enemy raised their flag over our sovereign territory. Well, maybe it does not matter to our Secretary of State the events that actually led up to it, but it matters to me. It was on her watch.

Maybe Hillary does not understand the meaning of this event, but I am certain that our enemy does. It mattered enough for them to plan it out and execute it while President Obama and she had the watch. I guess it does not matter to her who these people were or where they came from. In this case, her holding that post did not matter because she was certainly no worthwhile obstacle for them to overcome. It does not matter to her, but it matters to me. It matters to the United States of America when our ambassador is killed and our sovereignty is violated by an overt enemy attack. Killing is as loud a message as you can send and we are not listening. (What does it mater?) President Obama and his Secretary of State are not defending out country from external enemies. Instead they are covering up the real threat and inventing something else for their political gain. This is called losing the war. Yes, Mr. Secretary, it does matter.  

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Islam causes war: Part V. Separation of Church and State

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. Throughout most of the Middle East, Islam has been the ‘law of the land’ since the 8th century, yet many of the modern governments in the Middle East were only established in the 20th century. The Ottoman Empire, which controlled the area for centuries, was based upon Islamic law and is in fact considered by most as being the last caliphate, or true Islamic government. As a result, loyalty to Islamic laws and culture is far more established than any government that has been put in place since. (Bin Laden was a good example. He was loyal to Islamic government, and no other) 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”. We hear of Imams ‘declaring war’ upon the ‘occupiers of Muslim ‘Land’. (Osama Bin Laden and the Imams in Istanbul in 2008 are excellent examples) The modern world has no place for a ‘religion’ that can declare war.
The modern world cannot accept ANY ‘religion’ that can field its own armies to protect its 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 they ever change their mind at all.) This is why war is required to settle the issue. Islam has no separation of church and state. The very idea of separating the two has been, is and will be, fought violently both spontaneously 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 areas 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.
Wars were fought to rid the Pope of the ability to form and lead armies. People will wage war to protect the power they have. Imams wield REAL political power. Giving this up will not come without a fight. Historically, this is another very common reason for wars being fought. An election was held in Iraq. (2008) One Iraqi 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. In a sense, this Imam has greater power than the government. Another example: The Catholic Church is against abortion. However, the Catholic 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’. One example is Tribute.
Islamic Tribute specifies payment of non-Muslims to Muslim authorities and exempts them from military service. Taxation and conscription are two functions of the modern national government. Islam and Imams have no business being involved in either of these functions. Other examples are numerous, such as the many death penalties and/or chopping off of a hand for stealing or gouging out an eye. (Islamic law is literally 'an eye for an 'eye'.)
One way Imams obtain this power is by fielding their own armies. Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq is a good example of an Imam who formed his own militia and is a political leader today. He can trace his lineage to Muhammad. He was a major religious figure under Saddam Hussein and when the U.S. Invaded Iraq in 2003 formed a militia to resist the 'occupiers'. This fielding of combat units and armies by religions must end, TODAY. (Islam is the only exception to the general rule that this practice ceased more than 400 years ago.)
Another way of looking at it: I keep hearing comparisons of “Islamic radicals” (Islamic nationalists) with our own ‘bible bangers’ or other radicals like Timothy McVeigh. In sheer numbers, there can be no comparison. Even more importantly, in capability, they are even further apart. Just compare the KKK with Hezbollah or any other Islamic nationalist group. Have you ever heard of the KKK fielding its own artillery? Not even close.
Removing the influence and power fielded by Imams has and will result in violence. People do not give up that kind of power by choice. Historically it has been shown that it will take warfare to resolve. Reason number five in my list of why Islam causes wars is the lack of separation of religion and governance. Concerning Islam, they are the same.

Friday, March 1, 2013

HEY! It's a nice day!

I went outside this morning, and guess what? It is a nice winter day!

You know what they say about payback, Mr. President? The thing that I do not like about this is that we are discussing the 'Fundamental CHANGE' or in other words, the destruction of my country.

The day after the stimulus passed in 2009, you said that you had gone outside and 'it was a nice day'. The disaster that had been predicted as a result of the massive spending had not come to pass. Mr. President, it has YET to come to pass as you are predicting a similar outcome to the so-called 'sequestration'. Funny thing, the 'sequestration' was proposed by your administration. OK, it does not matter how we got here, we are here. Disaster is staring us in the face and 4 years later, you now see it.
At least we are making progress.

You see Mr. President, the FED simply cannot raise interest rates because our debt is so large that to raise it will cause the interest on that debt to skyrocket out of control. What is of concern here is that this will happen sooner or later. It will be a great advantage if we could get our debt under control prior to this point and it looks like the 'sequester' is about the only way we can even begin to do this. Please note that this is only a beginning. And not much of a beginning at that.

Payback is a real bitch, Mr. President. You have it coming to you. I don't like being an A-Hole but you have CHANGED my attitude about you. I must admit, you have been successful in making some of the 'fundamental CHANGE' that you are working so hard to implement. Please enjoy. It is only going to get better from here.