Islamic sovereignty
is the cause of Islamic 'terrorism'.
Foreword:
I view conflict as
part of human nature. Most conflict is NOT violent. Arguing with your
spouse is a good example. The issues that I have studied are
particularly about organized violence in the form of warfare. War
generally takes the form of either open warfare with professional
armies or irregular(guerrilla) war. Many of the issues that I point
out in the following chapters are from the point of view of human
nature. I am a historian. I see the study of history as being the
study of human nature. You have heard the phrase “History is
repeating itself”. This simply cannot happen. The same exact
situation never occurs again. The same people do not exist nor do
they occupy the same positions again. This is why all wars are
unique, like fingerprints. What does not change is human nature.
Hence the patterns or 'parallels' that historians refer to when they
say that history is repeating itself.
Some examples: Look
at how the Roman empire evolved from what could be considered a
republic for that age. Look at how Western Europe evolved. A more
personal example: Two immigrants back in the early 20th
century immigrate to America. They work hard, save their money, build
a successful business. Their children take over the business and do
well. They don't have to work so hard at it. They don't have to give
up so much in order to obtain their needs. The 3rd
generation was born into money and the values they hold will be even
more 'soft' compared to their grandparents. Not that the values are
all 'bad', they just undergo change. This change is magnified as each
new generation appears. The U.S. has been a 'rich' country for more
than 100 years now. We have changed significantly. In many ways, for
the better. In a number of ways, not so. This is the type of pattern
or 'parallel' that I am thinking of when I discuss the U.S., Europe
and Islamic evolution. Indeed, human evolution in the eye of a
historian. This is what I am referring to when I discuss human
nature.
Ever since I was in
the 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'. I guess I had anger issues. As time went on, I
realized that I had amassed a great deal of knowledge that many
others simply did not have. My thinking changed. My knowledge of
warfare helps with understanding it and by doing so, can potentially
be avoided. Is this not a valuable objective? Of course, avoidance is
not possible all the time. In that case, at the very least shortened
by effectively employing it. Not to mention choosing the fight wisely
as opposed to blundering into it. 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. The first time I really
noticed the sharpness in my knowledge of warfare was in 1981 when the
U.S. was arguing about bringing back the battleship.
In 1981, the
U.S. began to bring back the battleship as part of it's active fleet.
An 'expert' claimed that the battleship was as obsolete as the horse
was during World War II. This 'expert' can only have known very
little about World War II. The German army was 70% horse driven. If
you look at hardly any pictures of the German army or of battles
involving the German army, you will see horses everywhere. The
Germans kicked the hell out of everyone, (including us) for a long
time. The U.S. and England were the only 100% mechanized armies in
the world. Horses may have been obsolete, but they were still very
useful. When cut off from supply sources, you can eat a horse. This
happened many times throughout the world, particularly on the German
– Russian front. You can't eat a truck or drink fuel. The
battleship in the 1980's, 1990's and early 2000's would still be
useful. An Iowa class battleship could be outfitted with transponders
that would make it look much larger to an incoming missile. Place the
battleship between the aircraft carrier and the incoming missiles. It
is a far less valuable target and was designed to withstand direct
hits from shells much larger than the warheads of the incoming
missiles. It could take a dozen or more hits and just keep on going.
This could be a very valuable asset. It could take the punishment
that the carriers can't. Or any of the other, more modern vessels.
Fortunately, we did not need them. This 'expert' that called the
battleship so obsolete as to be useless needed a little more
research.
I have read
press releases from many wars throughout the 19th and 20th
centuries and realized the low level of understanding that reporters
and editors posses. Junior high level. Even today, most analysis of
current wars is on about a 7th or 8th grade
level. Even the generals who are interviewed are very limited in what
they say. At least the good ones are. This is because they know if
they give up certain information, more of “Our” men will be
killed. The good generals know that the enemy could be listening and
will use the information against them, as has happened many times in
the past. So the analysis for you, the public, is VERY limited. It is
up to you to do the research that will allow for the move advanced
understanding that is needed in today's modern world. Most of my
studies had been 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. *
I saw the airplanes
crash into our buildings, just like the Kamikaze attacks back in the
1940's when the U.S. was at war against Japan. Japan was the first
time in all of recorded history that repeated suicide attack had been
used as a weapon of war. The most basic instinct of all living things
is survival. Humans can and have overcome this instinct on the
individual level long ago. To do this on the scale of Japan in the
1940's requires cultural influence: “Today the popular belief is
that the Japanese who took part in BANZAI charges, flew kamikaze
missions, piloted Kaitens and Shiyo '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
fanaticism 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 with
deep-rooted Japanese traditions and a tyrannical governmental
structure.” (Page 157 Suicide Weapon, A J Barker C 1971)
Japan was able to
produce literally millions of suicide attackers. This repeated
suicide attack we are seeing throughout the Muslim world is the link
that pointed me to Islam. This is the common denominator. Islam is
what all the major world terrorist organizations have in common.
Until then, I had thought of Islam as being just another religion.
The news media certainly believes this to this day. Repeated suicide
attack on this scale requires cultural influence. I did not see Islam
as a culture. Yet Islam has been around for more than 1300 years.
Long enough to establish as a culture of it's own. Obviously, I
needed to take a much closer look at Islam.
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 Pro-Islamic
authors. Karen Armstrong, Tariq Ramadan and like minded authors. I
read anti-Islamic stuff, like Bernard Lewis. I found it interesting
that I was having a great deal of trouble finding very much that was
not leaning heavily to one side or the other. I was able to find only
one publication that had been written by a member of a group that
attempts to resolve differences between religions. This publication
was of little help. This is because it dealt with religion as we in
the West know religion. This is NOT were the war begins.
I found that
supporters of Islam like Karen Armstrong and Taric Ramadan 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. 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. Another large reason
was loyalty to state
over the Federal government. Robert E. Lee did not like slavery, yet
he resigned from the U.S. military because he was more loyal to his
state of Virginia than he was to the U.S. government. He was far from
being alone on this issue. 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 analysis that I have put
together contains only some of the issues. Many more exist, but these
are plenty. I have identified 8 issues that I believe people will
fight and kill to both eliminate and to defend. Indeed, many have
already. These issues are so established that like slavery in the
southern states, 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. (Or any one of them. All it really takes is
one good issue.) My conclusion is that Islamic Sovereignty is the
cause of world wide Islamic terrorism.
All wars ever
fought by man were about Sovereignty. Jefferson Davis ordered
Beauregard to open fire upon fort Sumter because it was a foreign
entity within the territory of the Confederate States of America.
Slavery was the legal difference between the Confederacy and the
United States. By winning the war, the United States forced it's
sovereign law upon the southern states. Slavery was no longer legal.
Sovereignty of the area being fought over is always the issue in war.
ALWAYS.
The U. S.
Revolutionary War determined who would make and enforce the laws in
the area encompassed by the English colonies. The Mexican-American
war determined who would hold sovereignty over Texas and much of the
western part of North America. The Spanish-American war determined
who would run Cuba and the Philippines. Russia went to war over the
sovereignty of Serbia in 1914 triggering World War I. Great Britain
declared war against Germany to protect the sovereignty of Belgium.
France and Britain declared war against Germany in 1939 to defend the
sovereignty of Poland. Korea was fought to defend South Korean
sovereignty. And even though it ultimately failed, America fought to
defend the sovereignty of South Vietnam. Even though sovereignty is
the primary cause, each war has it's own individual issues.
Each war is
unique as each person is unique and each person's fingerprints are
unique. The common denominator is sovereignty. You name the war and
you can find the sovereignty issue. Regarding the wars that Islamic
terrorism is waging today, our news media overlook this vital issue.
Just where is the sovereignty issue? It MUST be somewhere.
I define Islamic
sovereignty as being Islamic nationalism. This is loyalty to the
legal and political system of Islam (or a particular part of Islamic
law) over any other government or national entity. This does not have
to be in entirety. While I favor the United States over any other, my
Christian beliefs do NOT trump the U.S. government. While the Koran
has many interpretations, the basic idea of Islam as a national
entity that can wage war, defend ‘occupied’ land or ‘waters’
to enforce its sovereignty is the common denominator. What makes
this so dangerous is the fact that this concept is so widely
accepted. Islam was a major form of government for more than 1300
years. This is certainly long enough to entrench itself as a cultural
norm. Cultural change is one of the most difficult of all change. The
implication is that Islamic sovereignty will not go away easily, nor
quickly. As we have seen for the past 100 years, since the breakup of
the Ottoman Empire.
Islamic nationalism
is one, if not the major cause of 9/11/01 and the war(s). Many argue
that Islam is not monolithic, which is true. Many of the areas of the
world where Islamic nationalism is strong are modern, both in
technology and education. It was only 70 years ago when the world was
engaged in a massive war triggered by governments that ruled over
modern societies. While these governments were monolithic, the very
fact that the Islamic war today is irregular in nature would be a
natural expression of a divided force.
Islam was founded as
a combined religion and government. It is based upon many medieval
principals. This was 1,000 years before the rise of the professional
army and the modern national government. The armies of the ancient
world were irregular. The economies of the world could not maintain a
standing army as we know of them today. The only one that comes even
close is the Roman army. Even in the Roman army, the soldiers spent a
majority of their time doing peaceful economic activity. They were
called to arms as needed. They disbanded after the immediate need was
filled. Many times even before.
A natural disaster,
a drought many times forced the disbandment of armies and
postponement of the war they were waging. Sometimes for decades. The
officer corps in the Roman army was somewhat more professional, at
least at the top. And even then, they spent a great deal of time on
political and economic matters. The point is that the Islamic armies
of today resemble that of the medieval period more than anything
else. They even chop off heads and perform many other brutal acts
that have long since been discarded by modern ideology.
Pope Urban II
started the 1st crusade in 1098 by using the methods of
the day in generating an army. He rode around Europe and persuaded
the kings to unite and send what forces they could raise into the
Middle East. This was how wars were waged prior to the rise of the
professional army and the modern
national government.
I find it interesting that so may Muslims are offended by the term
'crusade' when in fact, Islam is doing exactly this today. Jihad is
the mechanism that Islam uses to raise its 'army' and project its
sovereignty.
The problem is
Islamic government and law. A religion that functions as a nation
state has no place in the modern world. Historically, Imams have had
the power to declare war, field armies, levy taxes and enforce laws.
Osama Bin Lauden is a classic example. All of the other religions of
the world (That I know of) have long since ended this practice. Islam
has yet to do this. Until this is accomplished successfully, the
Islamic world will continue to provide violent, organized
confrontations.
I have identified 8
concepts that initiate, support, encourage and enforce Islamic
sovereignty. This is by no means a complete list.
1) Islamic law
contains the penalty of stoning to death. 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. This law dictates
that the stones are not to be so small as to qualify as a pebble, and
not so large as to kill with one blow, which was clearly the case in
the stoning video that I saw. This 6th century idea has
got to go. Like slavery, this must end. NO more stoning people to
death! 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 a good enough reason to fight violence with violence. I
mention this as a cause of war because of the violent resistance that
is being seen when attempting to get rid of the stoning penalty.
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.
2) Beat your wife.
Even though different interpretations say different things, this
issue of beating your wife is still very large in Islam. In Saudi
Arabia recently (Spring 2016) a television show was aired saying how
it was important to 'lightly' beat your wife to keep any idea of her
equality with you (the male spouse) repressed. How can this be even
debated? Oh! No visible marks are to be left. Islamic law states you
must not leave marks that can be seen. I can see why Islamic doctrine
wants to cover up their women. You can't see any marks. This 6th
century idea has come and should be long gone. Like slavery, this
must end. Organized violence in the form of open warfare should be
expected as resistance to getting rid of this. Yet a great risk is
run when attempting to get rid of it, or ignoring it. (# 3 is the
penalty for leaving Islam is death) This is a solid demonstration of
how Islam has yet to evolve with modern ideas of human thought and
dignity. This is another 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 my second issue of Islamic law being a
cause of war.
3) The penalty for
leaving Islam is death.
This ‘Law’ has
been enforced for 1400 years. Don't think so? A recent poll of
Egyptians (Which is considered to be one of the most progressive
Muslim countries) showed that 80% of the population is in favor of
executing those who have left Islam. 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
allows people to take this type of action individually. Please
remember, no national government existed to restrain this type of
behavior. Just a kings authority. So the king who was Muslim would
encourage the individual to act so that he did not have to get
involved. Besides, it was much easier to enforce this way and
enforcement much more through and widespread. This is the origin of
'Honor killings'. Islam also implements the killing of others through
the authority that Imams exercise. They can field their own militias.
This was an effective way of raising armies prior to the rise of the
national government. This is also 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. I go into more detail on this issue
in the law of “Kill the occupiers of Muslim land”. 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 the primary factor 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, the Sunni/Shiite
divide is what is being referred to. The large amount of this
so-called sectarian violence throughout the Islamic world is a good
indicator of how entrenched the law is within the Islamic world.
Major attacks are occurring on an almost daily level. This
demonstrates how this Islamic law is far more established than many
of us 'Westerners' would like to believe.
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 that is significantly 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 (kill) 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 (And frequently, individuals) 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 another. No wonder it results
in violence, on both sides.
4) 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) 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 the professional army. 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.
5) Separation of
Church and state.
Islam was designed
and built as a system of governance. (In addition to being a
‘religion’.) Only around 15% of the Koran concerns itself with
what we think of as religion. (The 5 pillars) The remaining 85% is
about Islamic law and sovereignty. Islam was around long before the
modern national government even evolved. 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. Less than 100 years. The
Ottoman Empire, which controlled the area for more than 500 years,
was based upon Islamic law and is in fact considered by most as being
the last caliphate, or true Islamic government. (ISIS has been called
by some as being the new caliphate) As a result, loyalty to Islamic
laws and culture is far more established than any government that has
been put in place since. Once again, Bin Laden is a good example. He
was loyal to Islamic government. He was certainly not loyal to Saudi
Arabia, his country of origin. The colony of Virginia was around
long before the U.S. government. In 1860, less than 100 years after
our foundation, we still had many people, (Robert E. Lee is an
excellent example) particularly in the Southern States, who were more
loyal to their state (Or former colony) than to the Federal
government. Concerning Islam, this loyalty 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. After all, did any Germans or Japanese change their minds
once their governments became involved in World War II? They remained
loyal, as did we. 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. After all, if you separate
the church from the state, you clearly have left Islam. How can you
ignore 80% of the Koran without leaving Islam? The penalty is death.
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 300
years ago.)
Another way of
looking at it: I have heard of comparisons of “Islamic radicals”
(Islamic nationalists) with our own ‘bible bangers’ or other
radicals like Timothy McVeigh or those people who bomb abortion
clinics. In sheer numbers, there can be no comparison. How many of
those attacks occur in this country in a year? A few, maybe. How many
attacks are occurring in a year by Islamic terror groups? All over
the Middle East. And now even within our own country. Hundreds of
attacks a year. 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 combat units with 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.
These Islamic
‘armies’ (Islamic terrorist groups) are fighting for the
implementation of their view 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.
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
example: The Catholic Church is against abortion. However, the
Catholic Church has
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 historically
held far more power than the
modern world can accept. Imams can and
do enforce Islamic ‘law’.
This has been their
historical role for the vast
majority of 1400 years. Long
enough to become a cultural norm. Losing
this power has been and will continue to be fought with violence. The
next issue with Islam is the concept of Tribute.
6)
Tribute
Even though this
issue is not as prevalent today, Tribute is a good example of the
conflict between Islam and the modern government. Islamic
Tribute specifies payment of money
from 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. This
has actually
caused war between the United States and Islam. After the Revolution,
the U.S. paid the Barbary pirates for passage of our ships in the
Mediterranean Sea.
Our country became stronger and began to build a fleet of
warships. We then challenged
the Barbary pirates because we believed in 'freedom of the seas'. The
issue was the payment of “Tribute”. We owed them money because
our ships were passing through seas that Islam had surrounded.
Remember that once any 'land' is Islamic, it remains so until the end
of time. So the issues were:
“Freedom of the seas” on the side of the U.S. The
pirates issue was payment of
what infidels owe the Islamic world. Islamic
land had at least at one time surrounded the Mediterranean Sea for
the most part. Freedom of the seas versus payment of money for
passage. War was
the natural result. The
battle cry went out “Millions for defense, not a penny for
Tribute!”. One of our
warships was captured in the Mediterranean. We
attacked, killed those who
attempted to stop us, burned our ship and
left. We escorted our ships
with warships. The pirates
were not strong enough to continue to force the issue. We
never paid Tribute again.
7) Kill the
‘occupiers’ of Muslim land.
This will cause a
war EVERY time. (Please note the relationship with the next issue:
Jihad) 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 entities 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. It
made sense in 610 AD. This
was how armies were fielded prior to the rise of the nation-state and
the professional army. (This
is what Pope Urban II did to field the first crusade in 1098, as with
all the other crusades.) As
is being seen
so often today, Islam still retains a sizable number of followers who
believe that Islam allows
for this. If your national government refuses or cannot act, then
Islam must. 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’. With the
proliferation of Islamic terrorist groups, it is easily seen that the
respect that we hold for national governmental sovereignty is not
nearly as strong in the places of the world where Islamic terror
groups are active. This is in quite a few places throughout the
world. Kill the 'occupiers' of Muslim lands is a strong influence.
A religion like Christianity or 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”. Also
note the reference to warships. Warships, like armies, project
sovereignty. 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 armies. No
wonder violence and warfare is so common throughout the world where
Islam is in contact with other national entities and cultures.
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. Once you are
Muslim, 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’. By Islamic
standards, this is correct. As would be for Mexico to send terrorists
into our country because we sized Arizona, New Mexico and California
from them in 1848. I list the killing of 'occupiers' of Muslim land
as number 7 of the issues within Islam that causes open warfare.
8) Jihad
This is the
mechanism for fielding the Islamic army. This is how Muslims are
“drafted” or “conscripted” to use a modern term. Many Muslims
believe that Jihad is an internal struggle. This is supposedly the
‘greater Jihad’. However, they are not the majority. “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 close to 1000 years.
The concept of booty as it was generally known is inappropriate with
the concept of Jihad as an internal struggle. Jihad may be
interpreted as an internal struggle, but the reward system in this
world makes it a foreign policy. This can and has caused wars. This
is the mechanism that supplies Imams the power of a modern
government. Jihad provides Imams the ability to field their own
personal militias and armies.
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.
Sharia blasphemy:
Although not
specifically mentioned in the Koran, this concept is widespread. A
number of Muslim countries have laws with penalties ranging from
fines to life imprisonment or death. From what I understand of the
origins of this issue, the idea of penalties for this is a result of
jurisprudence that has taken place since the time of Mohammad. In any
case, sharia blasphemy is directly in conflict with the first
amendment of the U.S. Constitution allowing for free speech. Many
nations in the entire world are having difficulty with sharia
blasphemy because so many Muslims are adherents of this concept,
along with so many other Islamic concepts. Sharia blasphemy is just
another issue that is a potential cause of open conflict. After all,
the First Amendment is kind of important.
If you do not
believe that this is not worth waging war both for and against, then
don't count it. I believe differently enough to add this as a
supplement to the 8 issues in my list as to why Islam causes violence
and warfare.
Another issue that I
carry as a supplement is how traditional Islam treats the homosexual
community. The penalty is death. Lot's of death penalties in Islam.
As
one Islamic
cleric
recently
put it, the
only point of theological debate is not whether the homosexual should
be killed, but how
it should
be done.
Another
is honor killing: Family members kill thousands of Muslim women every
year to save the 'honor' of their families. (A minority of victims
are men) Just do your own research on this issue and you will find
plenty of disturbing patterns of violence concerning honor killings
due to Islamic doctrine and ideology.
I
mention these because my list of 8 reasons is by no means complete.
Sharia blasphemy, killing of gays and honor killings are just more
conflicts that traditional Islam has with our very culture, not to
mention our legal and political systems.
Islamic nationalism:
This is Islamic
sovereignty. This is actually a combination of all 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 (Never a she) is a nation state. It is comparable to dealing
with the Native American tribes in 19th century North
America. That worked out so well! 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 do not represent the Islamic nation or Islamic
sovereignty. Osama Bin Lauden declared war against the United States
because we had soldiers in Muslim territory, even though they had
been invited by the Saudi government. Osama did not recognize the
authority of the Saudi government on this issue. Mosques are
embassies of Islam. As such, they are sovereign territory of Islam.
Not like churches. Try sending a policeman into a Mosque, anywhere in
the world. Let's see what happens. Care to guess? History has shown
violence far more often than not. I wonder why?
A large
practical demonstration of Islamic sovereignty is how Imams have the
authority to declare war. How else besides war, can you deal with a
foreign entity that claims that it should and intends to kill your
soldiers and/or civilians? Justification to attack is rarely needed
anyway as Islamic doctrine (house of war) 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 armies that Islam 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. Atrocities occur in all
wars. (You could argue that war itself is an atrocity) A direct
correlation exists between the amount a training an individual or an
particular unit undergoes and the amount of atrocities that unit or
individual will commit. I am referring to battlefield atrocities, not
those ordered by the government. (The Holocaust, for example) The
higher the training, the fewer the atrocities. The cause of this is
the discipline that is instilled. Naturally, irregular forces lack
this training and discipline. Historically, they commit far more
atrocities than professional armies. This is particularly true of the
Islamic armies. Look how well they treat their captives. This is as
good a reason in and of itself for waging war to rid the world of
this medieval force. Islamic nationalism causes war. It must go the
way of the Dodo bird. Don't think for one moment that any attempt to
ignore Islamic nationalism or get rid of it will NOT cause open
violence and warfare. As is being seen on a daily basis.
Islamic sovereignty
causes war: Conclusion
The number one rule
of war is to “know thy enemy”. In this case, Islamic sovereignty
and Islamic nationalism. An analysis of Islamic sovereignty and how
entrenched this view is necessary. The source of the concept of a
sovereign Islam is obviously the Koran. The Koran is basically a book
of phrases. These phrases are organized by their size. Largest
phrases first, smallest or shortest last. (Exception: The first
“chapter”.)Scattered throughout are a mixture of religion as we
in the West know religion. Most of the Koran is devoted to legal and
economic laws. Most of the 'religious' or peaceful phrases in the
Koran were spoken early in the formation of Islam when Mohammad did
not have the power and authority of a ruler. The five 'pillars' of
Islam, praying 5 times a day, a pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting from
dawn to dusk during holidays, these are what we in the west call
'religion'. The Koran specifically states that in cases where the
‘laws’ are contradicting, the later rules are to be followed.
(Remember, 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. This is when Islam held the power of government.
Rules had to be made for governance. This is also where the war
against the modern government and in particular the U.S., begins.
As
far as the ‘Nation of Islam’ was concerned, the United States was
just another infidel country. During
our first 150 years of existence, the
Barbary pirates was
the
only
notable
clash
or direct contact. 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.
However,
our influence was resented. This is human nature. 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.
We became
'occupiers'
of Muslim land. From Islam’s point of view, the U.S. was
successfully thrown out when
we withdrew.
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’ again.
Even if the Saudi
national
government invited us in. Osama
Bin Lauden declared war on the U.S. because of this. Islam
does not recognize the authority of the modern national government,
even
where Islamic law is a basis of it's legal system.
Ever since then,
Islam has been 'officially' at war directly against us because we
continue to be ‘occupiers’. However small the numbers may be, we
still have troops in Muslim 'lands'. Soldiers, like ships and
aircraft, represent sovereignty. The Islamic terrorist groups are the
‘army’ of Islam. These are not ‘extremists’ as much as they
are followers of that particular version of Islamic system of
governance. Even these suicide attackers are not crazy, anymore than
the Kamikaze pilots were in Word War II. This 'Nation of Islam' can
override any and all national governments. Bin Laden is an excellent
example. He believed (as do many others) that the sovereignty of
Islam is being challenged. Historically, sovereignty issues are
always present in the cause of open warfare. Determining what is the
'law of the land' in the area being contested is the issue. In
addition, defending your country (Or in this case, Islamic
sovereignty) and it's territory tests the loyalty of the population.
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 who fought for the Confederacy. The ‘good’ Germans and
Japanese in 1944 fought for their countries as hard as anyone else.
It made no difference if any of them were really 'good' people or
not. Many Muslims are already fighting against a foreign influence
that is in conflict with Islamic governance and ideology. Just look
at the shooter in the Orlando attack in June 2016. He was born and
raised in the U.S. He beat his first wife who had to be rescued from
him. In Islamic countries, many families would have killed their own
daughter or sister for defying Hubby. Yet where did he learn about
beating his wife? Not from our culture. Domestic violence does happen
in our culture, but it is not that common and is officially
discouraged and punished. This is not the case in Islamic culture.
Naturally, this type of behavior would be far more common and carried
to more extreme in environments that encourage it and are not
punished. Culture is the key here. That shooter in Orlando called a
media outlet and spoke very calm and collected. He wanted us to know
why he did it. The Kamikaze attacker in the 1940's did not have this
outlet, so they made a ritual prior to the attack, much as we have
seen in many Islamic suicide attacks in the past.
Naturally,
Islamic reaction is hostile to infringement upon what is considered
to be it's sovereignty. Islam
has
a relatively low threshold for waging war. As
was common prior to the rise of the modern nation state. War
tends to make people chose. Most will naturally chose the side that
they live with and understand. Even if that
side is evil,
like slavery in
the
Confederate
States of America or
the Nazi government.
We can expect that many if
not most,
Muslims will
side
with Islamic
culture and ideology in
any open conflict. Human nature demands this. This is
what is being overlooked with
analysis of our presence 'over there' and how it supposedly 'creates'
new enemies. Wars ALWAYS create new enemies. The U.S. literally
obtained
more
than 100 million
new enemies on December 10th,
1941 than we did only
a
few days prior. What 'occupation'
is
really doing is exposing those who are willing to speak out and/or
take action against us out of their belief in Islamic sovereignty.
These are not 'new' enemies. We
can
see them now. Just because we can now see so many more does not make
them new enemies. And is this not the problem with fighting
terrorism? Knowing who they are?
Even
if you disagree on a number of the issues
I
have listed,
this is enough to explain why peace has been so elusive in the Middle
East and with Israel in particular. Far
to many
issues within Islam are of a nationalist nature to NOT cause
organized violence. Take
note of
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
governments.
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 Islamic
nationalist groups
are NOT accountable and this creates a very serious conflict of
interest. So
why do these
Muslim governments support them or even put
up with them?
Two
possibilities exist:
Either the host government can't stop them, or will not stop them. I
believe that in
most cases, the
host government(s) agree on enough issues that they allow this to go
on. We
can see far
to many
of these situations to
be otherwise. Example: 16
of the 19 attackers on 9/11/01 were from Saudi Arabia. Newly
declassified information
demonstrates that an uncomfortable portion of the Saudi government
knew about it. This
should be no surprise. Turkey
is another example. I do not believe that the declaration of 2008 by
those Imams in Istanbul caught the government of Turkey by surprise
or
in disagreement.
Why else has the Turkish government never disavowed it? Not a word.
Remember,
Turkey revoked permission for the 4th
division to invade Iraq from it's territory less than 24 hours prior
to our invasion. No way was that unit able to be redeployed in time.
You can't convince me that this was not a deliberate attempt to aid
our enemy. My
conclusion is that the Turkish government (Along with a lot of other
Islamic based governments) agree with the concept of Islamic
sovereignty. As
does much of the population of these countries. We
should expect
outrage. Having
the KKK field combat units? We just do not see any real amount of
opposition in any of the areas where these Islamic units are
operating. So these Islamic nationalist
groups
continue to commit acts of war that the host government can avoid
taking responsibility for. These types of Nationalist issues
will continue
to cause
wars in order to obtain a resolution. This
is where separation
of church and state is
necessary with Islam and by doing so, will
trigger violence
and open warfare.
Religions cannot be
allowed to muster armies today like they could in the 7th century.
Only national governments should be able to raise and deploy armies.
The fact that Islam is doing so today (as if we are still in the 14th
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 than what
existed before the 17th century. As a result of
technology, 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. Kingdoms rose and fell at a far more rapid pace
than governments today. Kingdoms (Governments of that time) changed
frequently, sometimes multiple times within a single persons short
lifetime. Far fewer governments exist today and do not change nearly
as often, if at all. The national governments of today are far
stronger and more resistant to external change and conquest than the
kingdoms of the ancient past. Hence the movement of Islamic
nationalists toward irregular warfare in the form of terrorism. This
really was how war was waged prior to the rise of the professional
army and the modern national government. Yet the nationalist nature
of Islam has remained. Since the breakup of the Ottoman empire in
1919, Islamic nationalism is weaker. Toss in the great structural
flaw of the Islamic law being the penalty for leaving Islam is death.
This keeps Islam badly divided. However, cultural change on this
level takes far more than a few generations to even gain a majority.
Unless massive change was forced upon it, like Japan after World War
II. Clearly, this is NOT the case concerning Islamic nationalism.
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. The 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. And it only takes one side to start a
war. Just look at the German invasion of Poland in 1939. How much
more could Britain and France have done to avoid the war? In fact,
they went way to far.
Speaking of
political entities, “Islamic electoral policy has been classically
summarized as “One man (men only), one vote, once”” (B. Lewis)
In other words, once Islamic law has been voted in, no other form of
law is acceptable. Another one-way street. No more voting. Islam does
not vote on anything. It dictates everything. Islamic governance is
the most authoritarian legal system I have ever studied. It makes the
Nazis look like school children. The best way to understand this is
to study Islamic law. It is not all that difficult. After all, we
have 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence to rely upon. Just look it
up. All I ask is to attempt to keep an open mind. Concerning Islam,
this can be difficult to implement. Not any middle ground to work
with. You see what you want to see. That is human nature. If you
don't want to see something, you will not. That is also human nature.
The trick is to know what you own prejudice is. Rule Number 2 of
warfare: Know thyself. What is left is only one side or the other
giving in. War can be the only result to such situations.
Negotiations do not work on these types of scenarios.
Until one side or
the other implements some very large changes, this war can only be
just beginning.
It
has been a long time since the last major, world war. History has
demonstrated that major wars occur every so often. (Like
the big arguments with your spouse. They just happen every so often.)
On
top of this, it is only a matter of time before one of these Islamic
sovereign (terrorist)
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. You
escalate the war until the other side either cannot or will not
match. Time
is NOT on our side. Europe
and
the U.S. government are
currently playing
for time. Hence,
the war is growing with attacks occurring within our own homeland
several times a year now. (Year
2016)
In
any case, it is worth waging even massive conventional warfare than
to wage war involving WMD. I am referring to nuclear weapons although
any really effective WMD that
could
yield
similar results will
qualify.
In
fact, nuclear weapons are a good way to wage punitive war. They kill
everything. The very definition of punitive war. The
sovereign ‘Nation of Islam’ IS the cause of the warfare that is
called
“Radical Islamic terrorism”. In
order to stop this, we
need to challenge Islamic sovereignty.
This
means conventional warfare unless we want to wait until they are able
to attack us with WMD. Think that once the capability is available,
the Islamic “radicals” will not use them? Islamic
sovereignty must be smothered. Challenged at every turn practical.
We
need to challenge 'kill the occupiers of Muslim land'. Boots
on the ground. Two
ways exist to wage war: The
first is the war
of conquest. This
is where
you work with the people in the area and help them so that they will
eventually join you. The other is the punitive war. You
kill everything. The
Romans excelled at this. It
is unlikely that they often put
salt
in
the
ground
to prevent anything ever growing again,
but the idea was to wipe out the ability to ever come back.
Punishment
wars were far more common before the modern government arrived. The
modern government and republics typically don't wage this type of
warfare. In addition, republics
do not sustain long wars very well. Why would they? After all, who
the hell wants to go risk their life in some God forsaken place? My
two sons are nearing draft age. Think I want them to risk losing a
leg, or their life? Not if I have anything to say about it. You can
see how a functioning Republic that responds to the will of its
population would not tolerate a long war. In
the Vietnam
war,
we eventually got tired of the war. (This war was not strategic in
nature like the irregular war we face today.) Another case
in point: The war in Iraq. After a few years, we elected a new
President who pulled us out. And so many of us knew that we were
going to have to go back. Because this is a long war that will likely
last many decades. It
already
has.
The
battleground must be in the Middle East, not in
the
U.S. We
need to “occupy”
as much as we can just
to keep our enemy occupied and his resources committed.
Traditional
Islam must attack our forces in ANY Islamic country. Much
better to force our enemy to attack our armed forces instead of every
where else. Combat
favors the conventional forces over irregular units. Conventional
forces have greater firepower, better
training, better mobility
and generally they outnumber the 'insurgent' forces. The
more the combat, the better. The
attrition rate for irregular forces is naturally higher because their
supply and medical resources are limited, at best. In Iraq and
Afghanistan from 2001 to 5/29/2012 the U.S. lost 4425 dead and 32223
wounded. We killed better than 10 to 1. This should give us an idea
of what type of losses our enemy can endure. Where are these guys now
that the casualty rate is so much lower today? Up to no good for us.
We can expect more suicide attacks within our homeland. Coordinated
attacks like in Paris and Brussels can be expected eventually within
the continental U.S.
We must stop the inflow of this ideology.
No
more stoning to death, or flogging. No more armed jihad. We must
protect those who leave Islam, even if it means open warfare. This is
an important one, because so much of the Koran must be either deleted
or ignored that in order to do so, you clearly have left Islam. How
else can you separate the church from the state than to leave Islam?
No more beating your wife. Tribute must not be paid. The concept of
“House of war” will have to be ignored by Muslims. I don't know
how to challenge this one, except through general practice with the
above challenges. Mosques cannot get special treatment, particularly
regarding police entry. Much in the same way as churches. If
we need surveillance within Mosques, we had better do it. If
we have to send in undercover police, we must do it. I
don't know what the laws are concerning these issues with churches.
We need to go as far as the law allows. Mosques
are NOT embassies and cannot be allowed to be thought of as such.
Islamic
law must perish from this earth.
The
bad news is that this
will
trigger open
warfare. As it already has. “Occupation”
is an excellent way to mount this challenge to Islamic sovereignty.
This was one of the main reasons why I was interested in ‘invading’
Iraq. It
did not matter if Iraq had WMD or not. That was the excuse. It
forced our enemies into attacking our military in the desert, an
ideal environment for mechanized warfare. Our forces excel at this
type of warfare. Our
enemy is not a mechanized force. (Number
1 rule: Know thy enemy. Number 2: Know thy self) To
use a sports analogy, the match up is excellent for us, bad for our
enemies. Certainly better than allowing them to attack our shopping
malls and schools. By
our 'occupation' of Iraq, we chose the battlefield on ground to our
advantage and to the disadvantage of our enemy. This is how wars are
won. No
war has ever been won by allowing the enemy to choose the
battlefield. This
would be like an American football game where one side always is
given the ball. This is not fair. War is not fair either. Either we
choose the battlefield, or our enemy will. This
war
cannot
be won by fighting in our cities and shopping malls and schools. We
must take the war to Islamic sovereignty. “Occupation”
is probably the quickest and most certain path. Nation
building in other words. The very culture must be changed. Similar to
what occurred with Japan after World War II. As is being seen today,
it is obvious that we did not stay in Iraq nearly long enough. In
fact, we are back at a level that is so low that we are
not
seriously
challenging
any of the issues at stake.
The
lead really should be taken
by the
U.N. The governments of the world really should mount a concerted
effort to challenge and eliminate Islamic sovereignty. However, I do
not see the U.N. nor any real majority of the major nations uniting
in this way. The winning of the war truly
rests
upon us. We
need to build a coalition of nations in whose it is in
our
best interest to end this damn thing before it gets out of control.
Wars
tend to do just that.
Islamic
law
and nationalism
has to disappear just as Christian
nationalism
died during
the rise of the professional army and the modern national government.
Otherwise, the war Islamic nationalism is
waging against us will
go on. Like
it has for the
past 1400
years. And
sooner or later, nukes or
some other WMD are
going to enter the picture. Then
the real war will begin.
The crisis of Islam:
Bernard Lewis Copyright 2003
In the footsteps of
the prophet: Tariq Ramadan Copyright 2007
Suicide Weapon: A J
Barker Copyright 1971
The first Crusade:
Thomas Asbridge Copyright 2004
*It took a few
months to figure out Osama's three mistakes on 9/11/01. He hit too
soon, both tactically and strategically. I count this as two
mistakes. The time of day was not late enough. Those buildings would
have held many times more people if the attack had occurred just two
hours later. Then they did not hit us hard enough. We recovered
without any noticeable effect on our ability to hit back. They have
not had the ability to hit us with coordinated attacks within our
country since. This is about to change. Anyway, if they had waited
long enough to obtain nuclear weapons, they could have decapitated
our government. This is why President Bush recalled that 'shadow'
government that President Eisenhower had established back during the
Cold war. Osama did not hit us hard enough. They just don't have the
ability to use WMD, but I can't see them holding back if they ever
were able to obtain some. Combining this with their sheer numbers
makes them a much greater threat than most analysis would suggest.