I pulled this from the site ‘www.longwarjournal.org’.
"The attack in Karmah comes as Multinational Forces Iraq is preparing to turn over control of the province this weekend. Designating Anbar as Provincial Iraqi Control puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead of security operations. US forces would be in an "overwatch," or supporting role to back up Iraqi forces as needed.
Anbar is the tenth of Iraq's 18 provinces to go under Iraqi control. It was once thought Anbar would be the last to transition to Iraq control. Anbar was written off as "lost" to al Qaeda in Iraq in late 2006. But the rise of the Anbar Awakening, the groups of tribes and former insurgent groups opposed to al Qaeda's theocratic rule, turned the tide in early 2007 and made Anbar one of Iraq's most peaceful provinces."
It is nice to see progress. I will caution you that this war is far from being over. The ideology of the enemy has a base throughout the Muslim world. Islam numbers well over 1 billion people. Cultural change takes time. With so many people involved, we can expect this to take decades.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
US Civil war, Iraq war and Arab-Israeli conflict
The two main issues decided by the U.S. Civil war were:
1) Slavery became illegal.
2) States may NOT leave the Union. The Federal Government overrules the state.
The 2nd issue was triggered by the threat of the 1st issue becoming law. (Actually, the states began to leave when they figured that slavery could not expand anymore, which would continuously weaken that position and eventually lead to outlawing it altogether.) The cultural impact of removal of the evil of slavery was so great that many good southerners fought and died defending it. Yet Robert E. Lee did not fight for slavery. He resigned his commission and fought because he was more loyal to his state of Virginia than he was to the United States of America.
In Iraq (Indeed, in many parts of the Middle East) today, many people are more loyal to the clan than they are to the governments that govern them. Yet the trigger for this issue becoming so decisive is something else. I propose that the trigger is the clash of Islam and the openness of democracy.
The ‘occupation’ of Iraq by infidels is of importance because one of the ‘authentic’ laws of Islam is the obligation to kill all occupiers of Muslim lands. This issue in turn brings up others, such as the penalty of leaving Islam is death. This causes problems because any Muslim who agrees in just about any way with the ‘occupiers’ is then an Apostate and is to be killed. This also brings up the entire issue of Jihad and the rewards of booty in this world and paradise in the next. These are some of the reasons that Islamic culture clashes with just about all cultures that it is making intimate contact with. These are some important reasons as to why a permanent peace has been unattainable between Israel and the Muslim world.
The ex-French president said it best: "Democracy is not a process, it is a culture." Islamic culture is inherently hostile to just about all other cultures. Democracy is the most conflicting because of its general openness. Islamic governance is very autocratic and intolerant. The culture that thrives within would naturally adapt to its environment of general intolerance. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a very visible example of the clash between these two cultures. Another example is Lebanon. Turkey is a somewhat different example, although many of the same issues are present there as well.
Now we have the Iraqi ‘occupation’ and the potential of another democracy attempting to live within Muslim culture. Constant warfare has been the outcome for more than 60 years between Israel and Arabs. Democracy and a capitalist economy are a direct threat to the closed and autocratic governance and culture that Muslims have adapted to. Naturally, they are attacking the threat. Resistance in the form of open warfare can be expected to last for decades, maybe even centuries. Historically speaking, warfare tends to speed up the merging of cultures. Maybe this is what is needed. If the Palestinians can build an actual, functioning democracy, it will mark a major milestone in the Arab world’s move toward acceptance and tolerance.
The big question: When will an Islamic terrorist organization obtain an effective weapon of mass destruction?
1) Slavery became illegal.
2) States may NOT leave the Union. The Federal Government overrules the state.
The 2nd issue was triggered by the threat of the 1st issue becoming law. (Actually, the states began to leave when they figured that slavery could not expand anymore, which would continuously weaken that position and eventually lead to outlawing it altogether.) The cultural impact of removal of the evil of slavery was so great that many good southerners fought and died defending it. Yet Robert E. Lee did not fight for slavery. He resigned his commission and fought because he was more loyal to his state of Virginia than he was to the United States of America.
In Iraq (Indeed, in many parts of the Middle East) today, many people are more loyal to the clan than they are to the governments that govern them. Yet the trigger for this issue becoming so decisive is something else. I propose that the trigger is the clash of Islam and the openness of democracy.
The ‘occupation’ of Iraq by infidels is of importance because one of the ‘authentic’ laws of Islam is the obligation to kill all occupiers of Muslim lands. This issue in turn brings up others, such as the penalty of leaving Islam is death. This causes problems because any Muslim who agrees in just about any way with the ‘occupiers’ is then an Apostate and is to be killed. This also brings up the entire issue of Jihad and the rewards of booty in this world and paradise in the next. These are some of the reasons that Islamic culture clashes with just about all cultures that it is making intimate contact with. These are some important reasons as to why a permanent peace has been unattainable between Israel and the Muslim world.
The ex-French president said it best: "Democracy is not a process, it is a culture." Islamic culture is inherently hostile to just about all other cultures. Democracy is the most conflicting because of its general openness. Islamic governance is very autocratic and intolerant. The culture that thrives within would naturally adapt to its environment of general intolerance. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a very visible example of the clash between these two cultures. Another example is Lebanon. Turkey is a somewhat different example, although many of the same issues are present there as well.
Now we have the Iraqi ‘occupation’ and the potential of another democracy attempting to live within Muslim culture. Constant warfare has been the outcome for more than 60 years between Israel and Arabs. Democracy and a capitalist economy are a direct threat to the closed and autocratic governance and culture that Muslims have adapted to. Naturally, they are attacking the threat. Resistance in the form of open warfare can be expected to last for decades, maybe even centuries. Historically speaking, warfare tends to speed up the merging of cultures. Maybe this is what is needed. If the Palestinians can build an actual, functioning democracy, it will mark a major milestone in the Arab world’s move toward acceptance and tolerance.
The big question: When will an Islamic terrorist organization obtain an effective weapon of mass destruction?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Islamic intolerance
It is commonly accepted that our major foe in the so-called ‘war on terror’ are terrorists who are Muslim. From what I understand of these terrorists, the overall goal is to rid the Muslim world of Infidels and Apostates and establish Islamic states with a commonly accepted Caliph. (Islamic line of succession or Leadership) Part of the problem with fighting this objective is that at least part of the terrorist ideology is commonly accepted throughout the Muslim world. From what I understand so far, Islam has four schools of legal jurisprudence. One of the many problems is that a number of ‘authentic’ laws that are recognized by all four schools of Islamic law are inherently intolerant of anything that is not Muslim.
The recent vote to outlaw insults of religious symbols is a case in point. The law was to be designed to prohibit insults of Islam. (As well as all religions) The idea was shot down by a substantial margin because it would force Muslim countries to allow greater access to other religions and ideas. Because Islam is not just a religion, but also a system of laws and governance, the intolerance is much more general than just an intolerance of religion. The source of this general intolerance is the Koran. The rules and laws of Islam are based upon this 'holy' book.
Islam has been an established way of life for something like 1400 years. General intolerance is engrained within the culture, hence the sensitivity to insult of the entire culture, not just Islam. This is why so many tend to become violent when Islam is insulted, the entire culture is being attacked. This is not to say that everyone in the Middle East is intolerant and a big jerk.
An additional problem is that even those who are much more tolerant than others are still going to support the overall culture. I will use the example of good Germans and good Japanese in World War II. You will fight for your way of life, and culture is the very center of that way of life. Hence the many good southerners who fought so well for the evil of slavery. Open warfare is a common result of cultural change, or the threat of cultural change. We can only expect this from that part of the world that embraces this culture. We are also caught in a situation that demands change. The culture that is producting repeated suicide attackers MUST change before one of the terrorist organizations that originate from there obtains and deploys an effective weapon of mass destruction.
The recent vote to outlaw insults of religious symbols is a case in point. The law was to be designed to prohibit insults of Islam. (As well as all religions) The idea was shot down by a substantial margin because it would force Muslim countries to allow greater access to other religions and ideas. Because Islam is not just a religion, but also a system of laws and governance, the intolerance is much more general than just an intolerance of religion. The source of this general intolerance is the Koran. The rules and laws of Islam are based upon this 'holy' book.
Islam has been an established way of life for something like 1400 years. General intolerance is engrained within the culture, hence the sensitivity to insult of the entire culture, not just Islam. This is why so many tend to become violent when Islam is insulted, the entire culture is being attacked. This is not to say that everyone in the Middle East is intolerant and a big jerk.
An additional problem is that even those who are much more tolerant than others are still going to support the overall culture. I will use the example of good Germans and good Japanese in World War II. You will fight for your way of life, and culture is the very center of that way of life. Hence the many good southerners who fought so well for the evil of slavery. Open warfare is a common result of cultural change, or the threat of cultural change. We can only expect this from that part of the world that embraces this culture. We are also caught in a situation that demands change. The culture that is producting repeated suicide attackers MUST change before one of the terrorist organizations that originate from there obtains and deploys an effective weapon of mass destruction.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Definition of terrorist
Strange, I could not find the definition of terrorist in The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I found the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined as "The systematic use of terror to coerce by threat or violence." By this definition, terrorism is a behavior. By default, we can define a terrorist as being one who engages in terrorism.
What else do we know about terrorists?
1) Terrorists do not have any "official" government support.
2) Terrorists do not have uniforms, rank or serial number to identify themselves with.
3) Terrorists do not carry their weapons openly.
4) Terrorists use military weapons and tactics and engage in warfare.
5) The primary targets of terrorism are civilian, not military.
The things that we know about terrorists seem to look very much like pirates. The definition of pirate is "one who engages in piracy." Piracy is defined as "Robbery on the high seas or in the air". So pirates are taking property by coercion. Terrorists are coercing people for political objectives.
Speaking for myself, this is a very fine distinction.
What else do we know about terrorists?
1) Terrorists do not have any "official" government support.
2) Terrorists do not have uniforms, rank or serial number to identify themselves with.
3) Terrorists do not carry their weapons openly.
4) Terrorists use military weapons and tactics and engage in warfare.
5) The primary targets of terrorism are civilian, not military.
The things that we know about terrorists seem to look very much like pirates. The definition of pirate is "one who engages in piracy." Piracy is defined as "Robbery on the high seas or in the air". So pirates are taking property by coercion. Terrorists are coercing people for political objectives.
Speaking for myself, this is a very fine distinction.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Iraqi support of terrorism before U.S. invasion
Frankly, I really did not care and do not care if Iraq had any WMD prior to the U.S. invasion. WMD was a good excuse. I did care that Iraq was openly supporting terrorism. Although no evidence is available to show Iraq was helping al-Qaeda directly, they were supporting terrorism in general.
Iraq was openly sending money to the families of suicide attackers. Support for suicide attack is support for terrorism. HAMAS and other terrorist organizations support the families of suicide attackers because this is a major encouragement for others to repeat what has been done. If you know that your family will be taken care of, you have less to lose. For Iraq to openly do this is to openly encourage more.
Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization, by far. Yet al-Qaeda is the only organization that is being mentioned when we discuss Iraq’s support of terrorism. I suppose that this is because it is accepted that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. I am guessing that we should only go after al-Qaeda because they are the enemy. This view must believe ideology has no connection with other Islamic terrorist organizations.
Repeated suicide attack is being seen for only the 2nd time of all of recorded history. "Today the popular belief is that the Japanese who took part in BANZAI charges, flew kamikaze missions, piloted KAITENS and SHINYO ‘bang boats’, or served as human mines, were all fanatics. Because many of the BANZAI charges were ordered on the spur-of-the-moment no doubt there was an element of fanatism in the army’s operations. But the kamikazes, KAITEN and KAIRYU men were dedicated individuals whose calm acceptance of death illustrates the impact of ideological persuasion. Fanatical or not, their actions can only be understood when seen in relation to deep-rooted Japanese traditions and a tyrannical governmental structure." (AJ Barker, Suicide Weapon, 1970 Page 157)
Is this just me, seeing what I want to? Or do you see how this is similar to the culture and ideology that is prevalent in the Middle East?
Iraq was openly sending money to the families of suicide attackers. Support for suicide attack is support for terrorism. HAMAS and other terrorist organizations support the families of suicide attackers because this is a major encouragement for others to repeat what has been done. If you know that your family will be taken care of, you have less to lose. For Iraq to openly do this is to openly encourage more.
Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization, by far. Yet al-Qaeda is the only organization that is being mentioned when we discuss Iraq’s support of terrorism. I suppose that this is because it is accepted that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. I am guessing that we should only go after al-Qaeda because they are the enemy. This view must believe ideology has no connection with other Islamic terrorist organizations.
Repeated suicide attack is being seen for only the 2nd time of all of recorded history. "Today the popular belief is that the Japanese who took part in BANZAI charges, flew kamikaze missions, piloted KAITENS and SHINYO ‘bang boats’, or served as human mines, were all fanatics. Because many of the BANZAI charges were ordered on the spur-of-the-moment no doubt there was an element of fanatism in the army’s operations. But the kamikazes, KAITEN and KAIRYU men were dedicated individuals whose calm acceptance of death illustrates the impact of ideological persuasion. Fanatical or not, their actions can only be understood when seen in relation to deep-rooted Japanese traditions and a tyrannical governmental structure." (AJ Barker, Suicide Weapon, 1970 Page 157)
Is this just me, seeing what I want to? Or do you see how this is similar to the culture and ideology that is prevalent in the Middle East?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Terrorist WMD
An article dated 6/15/08 in the Chicago Tribune, Section 1, page 11 was titled "Smugglers reportedly had design for modern warhead".
The article described how in 2006 some computers that were owned by smugglers were found to contain designs for nuclear weapons to fit into a missile body. The design is of an advanced nature. It is unknown if any of this data was ever delivered to anyone.
The overall point is one that I have been making and will continue to hammer on: Time is NOT on our side. It is only a matter of time before a terrorist organization obtains and deploys an effective WMD.
The article described how in 2006 some computers that were owned by smugglers were found to contain designs for nuclear weapons to fit into a missile body. The design is of an advanced nature. It is unknown if any of this data was ever delivered to anyone.
The overall point is one that I have been making and will continue to hammer on: Time is NOT on our side. It is only a matter of time before a terrorist organization obtains and deploys an effective WMD.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Taliban jailbreak
An article dated Sunday, 6/15/08 in the Chicago Tribune, Section 1, page 11 was titled "Afghan blast kills 4 GIs as jailbreak tally at 870".
The article described how on Saturday (6/14/08) the Taliban attacked a jail in Afghanistan and freed 870 prisoners.
A possible way around the U.S. Supreme Court ruling for terrorists being given civil rights will be for us to place those captured enemies into prisons outside of our country and outside of our jurisdiction. Places where the potential for their escape is much improved than if we held them.
The article described how on Saturday (6/14/08) the Taliban attacked a jail in Afghanistan and freed 870 prisoners.
A possible way around the U.S. Supreme Court ruling for terrorists being given civil rights will be for us to place those captured enemies into prisons outside of our country and outside of our jurisdiction. Places where the potential for their escape is much improved than if we held them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
