Islamic law has to go the way of the dodo bird. Far too many of the laws within the Islamic legal system are controlling and backward. Chopping off the hands of thief’s, lashes with whips. Far too many death penalties exist: Stoning to death and death for leaving the faith. Most of these ‘laws’ are meant as a form of governance and control. Many of these laws are of 6th century ideology. A man being able to take his wife against her will, or being able to beat her. Modern psychologists are in agreement that rape is not about sex, it is about power. Islamic governance is about as totalitarian as can be imagined.
In order to eliminate Islamic nationalism and Islamic terrorism, Islam must be restrained and modified to the point that it is just another religion. If you have to travel to Mecca in your lifetime, so be it. Or if you have to fast for 30 days, that is your lookout. If you have to pray 5 times a day, that is your problem, as long as following these rules don’t interfere with others rights. This is religion as is known throughout the world. In other words, have Islamic law become extinct. No more enforcement of Islamic law. The same significance as the Pope’s ability to enforce the Catholic Churches rules. Complete lack of authority to control. In addition, governments that are based upon Islamic law will have to change significantly. They will have to drop the foreign policy of the Koran. Islam cannot be allowed to field an army as it is doing today. A large percentage of the Koran will have to be ignored and deleted.
Change of this type would eliminate Islamic law and nationalism. Getting rid of this is change on the cultural level. This is where culture shock comes in.
To help myself understand the scope of the problem, I have identified three major areas of concern:
1) The size of the Muslim population today is more than 15 times that of Japan during World War II. Japan was able to create literally millions of suicide attackers. Statistically, the potential to create suicide attackers from today’s Muslim population is staggering.
2) Today’s suicide attackers are coming from all parts of the world, not just from one geographical area or country.
3) Assimilation of Muslims is so poor. Many Muslims have assimilated well, but a large proportion does not. Please note the emphasis upon being insulted and the resistance to change. It is as if many Muslims immigrate and find out that in the new environment, they are NOT the privileged class. Naturally, the human tendency would be to lash out and attempt to change the environment, to set things right. In contrast, Japanese culture adapts more easily and readily. I am married to a 3rd generation Japanese immigrant. I know her parents well. They were both imprisoned in the camps during the war. Two (of the four) of their parents died in those camps. They are now Green Bay Packer fans. (I know, therapy is available) You can’t be much more American than that. They are just as loyal Americans as I. They are not an exception. How many incidents of violent behavior did we see within the Japanese-American population during World War II? Or in the 60 years since? That would have told us something, particularly after we had imprisoned so many of them. They have had much better excuses to launch retaliatory attacks than the Muslim population today. (Please note that I am NOT suggesting that we place Muslim-Americans into camps)
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Islamic cultural shock: Part III
I draw the similarities between Japanese and Islamic cultures because the strongest instinct in all living things is survival. Man has learned to overcome this. Suicide in warfare is nothing new. Even the Spartans at Thermopylae knew they would not survive. What makes Japan and Islam different is the repetitiveness of the events as a tactic of warfare. Throughout history, suicide attacks were seen from time to time, particularly in desperate situations. However, they were not repeated. Japan used the concept of suicide as a tactic of war by it’s military and it was intended for the entire civilian population to follow suit. Thus the very idea is cultural in nature. If we look at Islamic culture, I would not be surprised to find a similar culture of death, at least in that portion of the population that is dedicated. This is not to say they were or are the same. Differences between the Japanese and Islamic examples exist.
For example, Japan was an isolated geographical area and was united as one national entity. Islam is far more spread out and diverse. Although Islamic nationalism is an uniting factor, it is far from being as concentrated as in Japan. Many Muslims throughout the world are loyal to the national entity they belong to. These particular Muslims have assimilated, although many others have not.
On a personal level, the Japanese culture of suicide in most cases took the form of retrieving honor that one had lost. (Harir kiri) Islamic culture tends to retrieve honor by killing the person who brought dishonor upon one. The so-called "Honor killing". What concerns me the most is the fact that the Japanese did not end their use of suicide attack until not just overwhelmed, but threatened with cultural extinction.
By early 1945, it was apparent that only a direct invasion could end the war against Japan. The loss of life projected by such action was expected to be in the millions. The invention and development of the nuclear weapon gave the United States an opportunity to possibly avoid the protracted affair of invasion. It can be argued that Japan would have surrendered anyway, but it cannot be denied that the use of the ‘Bomb’ helped to speed up the process. In any case, the ‘occupation’ of Japan followed with all of the cultural implications associated.
The occupation of Japan was as complete as could be humanly performed. The government was redesigned, the education system was re-built and the economy was re-engineered. Thus the culture itself was changed, drastically. What was a huge advantage of this approach over any today against Islamic culture is the fact that Japan was isolated. Japan is a group of islands that had a common culture. Islam today is spread out over the globe. The areas of the "inner defense perimeter", Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Middle East are not isolated. Oceans or open water do not limit the geographical areas. Changing the culture would not be nearly as easy, or as complete. The very fact that it took atomic weapons and ‘occupation’ to move the Japanese culture away from the organized suicide mentality is of major concern. And the clock is ticking.
It can only be a matter of time before an Islamic nationalist organization obtains an effective WMD. I just do not see any reason why they would not deploy it immediately. Once an effective WMD has been deployed, all of the losses of life and property in wars involving Islamic nationalism going on today would be dwarfed in comparison. And it would all in be one place or several places instead of spread out over a number of continents. Retaliation would and could be expected. I would also expect escalation. After all, if someone nukes the US and destroyed New York, why would we stop at one or two cities in exchange? In any event, it could be expected that further attacks would occur.
For example, Japan was an isolated geographical area and was united as one national entity. Islam is far more spread out and diverse. Although Islamic nationalism is an uniting factor, it is far from being as concentrated as in Japan. Many Muslims throughout the world are loyal to the national entity they belong to. These particular Muslims have assimilated, although many others have not.
On a personal level, the Japanese culture of suicide in most cases took the form of retrieving honor that one had lost. (Harir kiri) Islamic culture tends to retrieve honor by killing the person who brought dishonor upon one. The so-called "Honor killing". What concerns me the most is the fact that the Japanese did not end their use of suicide attack until not just overwhelmed, but threatened with cultural extinction.
By early 1945, it was apparent that only a direct invasion could end the war against Japan. The loss of life projected by such action was expected to be in the millions. The invention and development of the nuclear weapon gave the United States an opportunity to possibly avoid the protracted affair of invasion. It can be argued that Japan would have surrendered anyway, but it cannot be denied that the use of the ‘Bomb’ helped to speed up the process. In any case, the ‘occupation’ of Japan followed with all of the cultural implications associated.
The occupation of Japan was as complete as could be humanly performed. The government was redesigned, the education system was re-built and the economy was re-engineered. Thus the culture itself was changed, drastically. What was a huge advantage of this approach over any today against Islamic culture is the fact that Japan was isolated. Japan is a group of islands that had a common culture. Islam today is spread out over the globe. The areas of the "inner defense perimeter", Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Middle East are not isolated. Oceans or open water do not limit the geographical areas. Changing the culture would not be nearly as easy, or as complete. The very fact that it took atomic weapons and ‘occupation’ to move the Japanese culture away from the organized suicide mentality is of major concern. And the clock is ticking.
It can only be a matter of time before an Islamic nationalist organization obtains an effective WMD. I just do not see any reason why they would not deploy it immediately. Once an effective WMD has been deployed, all of the losses of life and property in wars involving Islamic nationalism going on today would be dwarfed in comparison. And it would all in be one place or several places instead of spread out over a number of continents. Retaliation would and could be expected. I would also expect escalation. After all, if someone nukes the US and destroyed New York, why would we stop at one or two cities in exchange? In any event, it could be expected that further attacks would occur.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Islamic culture shock: Part II
For the past few decades, we have been seeing repeated suicide attack for only the 2nd time in all of recorded history. Because this is so rare and both happen within the last century, I would expect to find similarities between the two occurrences. This is why I keep bringing up Japan in the 1940's’with the mass repeating of suicide attacks generated by Japan’s military. (The Kamikazes were only the air power part of the suicide attack ideology. The navy had suicide attack torpedoes and suicide surface craft. The army had banzai charges and human mines along with other suicide ideas and weapons)
Japan had been in self-imposed isolation until the mid 19th century. The Japanese were impressed by the big, black US naval warships. After making this contact with the USA, Japan made a conscious effort to modernize it’s military. It sent it’s best to Europe to learn from the most advanced navies and armies in the world. Japan also purchased modern weapons to use as a base for building it’s own fleet and a modern military.
Although the military advanced rapidly and showed it’s strength and modern abilities in the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905, the culture within Japan was not moving nearly as quickly. This demonstrated itself by the way that Japan conducted it’s foreign policy. Japan was aggressive and militarily expansionist. At the same time, culturally, Japan showed its backwardness with mid-evil ideas about being able to overcome physical obstacles by spirit and drive. Physical abuse was common in the military in order to make the men tough. Modern armies had generally long since abandoned the practice. This tends to stifle innovation and personal initiative. The idea that the men in the military were so willing to die for their cause could overcome all before it is an idea that breeds superiority and contempt of the enemy. This backwardness is really noticeable in Japanese military operations throughout World War II.
Even then, it took the breaching of the inner defensive perimeter (Saipan and the Marianas) to drive the Japanese to consider suicide units. Many Japanese were horrified by the idea of organized suicide operations. As I am certain within Islam today, we can find the ‘twisting’ of the Koran likewise stuns many Muslims. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Islamic governance has been in a state of decline for centuries. In the 20th century, with the formation of Israel, land that had been the first to be overrun was being lost. The innermost area of Islam, Mecca and Medina were now close to being in the front line. Islamic culture was not just on the defensive; it is on the point of being changed irrevocably. This is at least part of the reason as to why resistance to ‘occupied land’ is so consistent and intense.
Japan had been in self-imposed isolation until the mid 19th century. The Japanese were impressed by the big, black US naval warships. After making this contact with the USA, Japan made a conscious effort to modernize it’s military. It sent it’s best to Europe to learn from the most advanced navies and armies in the world. Japan also purchased modern weapons to use as a base for building it’s own fleet and a modern military.
Although the military advanced rapidly and showed it’s strength and modern abilities in the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905, the culture within Japan was not moving nearly as quickly. This demonstrated itself by the way that Japan conducted it’s foreign policy. Japan was aggressive and militarily expansionist. At the same time, culturally, Japan showed its backwardness with mid-evil ideas about being able to overcome physical obstacles by spirit and drive. Physical abuse was common in the military in order to make the men tough. Modern armies had generally long since abandoned the practice. This tends to stifle innovation and personal initiative. The idea that the men in the military were so willing to die for their cause could overcome all before it is an idea that breeds superiority and contempt of the enemy. This backwardness is really noticeable in Japanese military operations throughout World War II.
Even then, it took the breaching of the inner defensive perimeter (Saipan and the Marianas) to drive the Japanese to consider suicide units. Many Japanese were horrified by the idea of organized suicide operations. As I am certain within Islam today, we can find the ‘twisting’ of the Koran likewise stuns many Muslims. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Islamic governance has been in a state of decline for centuries. In the 20th century, with the formation of Israel, land that had been the first to be overrun was being lost. The innermost area of Islam, Mecca and Medina were now close to being in the front line. Islamic culture was not just on the defensive; it is on the point of being changed irrevocably. This is at least part of the reason as to why resistance to ‘occupied land’ is so consistent and intense.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Islamic culture shock: Part I
I would like to apologize to my loyal readers for repeating myself so often. I do this because new readers may not know the background of certain points that are fundamental. Fundamentals do not change. Human nature does not change. It is easy to lose focus on the basics.
One factor overlooked by many in the wars against Islamic terrorism today is the idea of culture shock. Many parts of the Islamic world are culturally set in many ideals that are considered medieval. Chopping off the hand or lashes with whips as punishment. Stoning people to death. Religions fielding armed forces and or defending ‘occupied’ land or ‘waters’. These concepts are imbedded into this way of life.
People will fight wars to defend their way of life. Culture is a major part of that way of life. The very culture that had evolved around the ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery was what drove so many good southerners to defend it, even though most did not own any slaves. Their very way of life revolved around the concept of slavery and as a result, they defended the evil of slavery to the best of their ability and with their very lives. After the war had been lost, that way of life was completely destroyed. This is a major reason as to why we are seeing so much violence in the Islamic world as it attempts to come to grips with modern technology and ways of thinking.
In the view of many of the people who live there, the Ottoman Empire was the last real Islamic government. The Ottoman Empire took in most of what we call the Middle East today. It was broken up after World War I and replaced with numerous other national entities. Naturally, loyalty to these ‘new’ governments was weak. Nationalism based upon these new governing authorities could be expected to take many generations. Resistance to these unnaturally designed authorities has been constant and is present to this day. The very culture that had been built and thrived under the old system can be expected to change only slowly. Then came oil.
Oil provided wealth that had not been seen for centuries. And it was like winning the lottery. In cultural terms, it occurred practically overnight. With that wealth came new technologies and much more contact with the rest of the world. Along with that came modern ideas about governance, treatment of women, education, and lifestyles in general. This created great social impact and cultural pressure for rapid change.
The very way of life was and is being threatened on a massive scale. It would only be natural for the culture to resist these changes. As is being seen today.
One factor overlooked by many in the wars against Islamic terrorism today is the idea of culture shock. Many parts of the Islamic world are culturally set in many ideals that are considered medieval. Chopping off the hand or lashes with whips as punishment. Stoning people to death. Religions fielding armed forces and or defending ‘occupied’ land or ‘waters’. These concepts are imbedded into this way of life.
People will fight wars to defend their way of life. Culture is a major part of that way of life. The very culture that had evolved around the ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery was what drove so many good southerners to defend it, even though most did not own any slaves. Their very way of life revolved around the concept of slavery and as a result, they defended the evil of slavery to the best of their ability and with their very lives. After the war had been lost, that way of life was completely destroyed. This is a major reason as to why we are seeing so much violence in the Islamic world as it attempts to come to grips with modern technology and ways of thinking.
In the view of many of the people who live there, the Ottoman Empire was the last real Islamic government. The Ottoman Empire took in most of what we call the Middle East today. It was broken up after World War I and replaced with numerous other national entities. Naturally, loyalty to these ‘new’ governments was weak. Nationalism based upon these new governing authorities could be expected to take many generations. Resistance to these unnaturally designed authorities has been constant and is present to this day. The very culture that had been built and thrived under the old system can be expected to change only slowly. Then came oil.
Oil provided wealth that had not been seen for centuries. And it was like winning the lottery. In cultural terms, it occurred practically overnight. With that wealth came new technologies and much more contact with the rest of the world. Along with that came modern ideas about governance, treatment of women, education, and lifestyles in general. This created great social impact and cultural pressure for rapid change.
The very way of life was and is being threatened on a massive scale. It would only be natural for the culture to resist these changes. As is being seen today.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
A sample of one of the problems that we face
I ran into the following comment on a site connected to Atlas Shrugs. This comment is a good indication of only one of the problems that we face when dealing with our enemy today:
"You Americans are childish, silly and histrionic. A lot like women, actually.
When my woman gets out of line, I beat her down.
Serves her right."
I replied:
I must admit, we can be childish and VERY silly.
We do love life. Unlike Islam, who an Islamic leader says: "We love death."
I must quote an old saying: Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The put down of women is traditional Islam. Not enough of our population appears to understand this, YET. As the rise in anti-Islamic attitudes in this country indicates, we are learning. (Too slowly for my comfort)
The attitude quoted above appears to forget that we Americans can wage war with the BEST. And this war has yet to really begin. It is not generally known that the repeated suicide attackers of today are only the 2nd occurrence in all of recorded history.
The first time was Japan in the 1940's. And the US killed 'innocent' civilians intentionally. By the millions. (By the way, my wife is Japanese.)
THAT IS THE AMERICAN WAY.
Maybe we are not like this today. Are you certain that you want to find out?
"You Americans are childish, silly and histrionic. A lot like women, actually.
When my woman gets out of line, I beat her down.
Serves her right."
I replied:
I must admit, we can be childish and VERY silly.
We do love life. Unlike Islam, who an Islamic leader says: "We love death."
I must quote an old saying: Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The put down of women is traditional Islam. Not enough of our population appears to understand this, YET. As the rise in anti-Islamic attitudes in this country indicates, we are learning. (Too slowly for my comfort)
The attitude quoted above appears to forget that we Americans can wage war with the BEST. And this war has yet to really begin. It is not generally known that the repeated suicide attackers of today are only the 2nd occurrence in all of recorded history.
The first time was Japan in the 1940's. And the US killed 'innocent' civilians intentionally. By the millions. (By the way, my wife is Japanese.)
THAT IS THE AMERICAN WAY.
Maybe we are not like this today. Are you certain that you want to find out?
Friday, December 10, 2010
Banning Islamic law
I e-mailed this to the New York Times in response to an article about the Oklahoma ban on using Islamic law in Oklahoma courts.
Last summer, (2010) a New Jersey court overruled a prior ruling that a Muslim man was allowed to rape his wife because he was acting in accordance to his cultural (religious) beliefs. How the hell did this case get that far?
Islamic law allows a man to take his wife against her wishes. We call this rape. Islam allows for this because within Islam, a man has no other outlet. Islamic law allows a man to beat his wife. (He is not to leave any visible marks) Why is there a debate over this? I sure as hell don't want that debate over here. Islamic law enforces stoning people to death. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Non-Muslims owe Islam money for living in lands that are controlled by Islam. I don't care if ANY of this happens only ONE time. Oklahoma does not want ANY of this CRAP. I agree.
I would like to point out that I really don't give a damn if Muslims need to pray 5 times a day. If they need to fast for a month, that is their lookout. Praying and fasting is religion, as I know it.
However, Islam has a legal system. Many parts of Islamic law are hostile to our legal system and our values. (The issues listed above are only a small sample) Legal rulings based upon Islamic law will start violence and warfare. Don't think so? Let's allow a stoning and see what happens. (By the way, the rocks can't be small enough to qualify as a pebble and not so large as to kill with one blow)
Rape is considered by psychologists to be an act of power, not sex. This 7th century law is all about power, particularly when you consider the other restrictions upon women and how Islamic law holds a ‘special’ place for them.
Within Islam, a large debate is going on to determine the meaning of the law allowing a man to beat his wife. Many interpret the phrases as ‘turning away’ or some other less hostile act. I really don’t give a damn. MY interpretation is that NO man is EVER allowed to hit ANY woman. (In fact, battery laws don’t allow a man to strike another man.) I do not see any need to argue this issue. If Islam wants to sort it out, that is their problem. I do not see ANY need to hold this debate in this country. The people of Oklahoma have seen these issues within Islamic law.
Oklahoma saw what happened in New Jersey and decided that they do not want ANY debate on these issues. Once again, I agree.
Last summer, (2010) a New Jersey court overruled a prior ruling that a Muslim man was allowed to rape his wife because he was acting in accordance to his cultural (religious) beliefs. How the hell did this case get that far?
Islamic law allows a man to take his wife against her wishes. We call this rape. Islam allows for this because within Islam, a man has no other outlet. Islamic law allows a man to beat his wife. (He is not to leave any visible marks) Why is there a debate over this? I sure as hell don't want that debate over here. Islamic law enforces stoning people to death. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Non-Muslims owe Islam money for living in lands that are controlled by Islam. I don't care if ANY of this happens only ONE time. Oklahoma does not want ANY of this CRAP. I agree.
I would like to point out that I really don't give a damn if Muslims need to pray 5 times a day. If they need to fast for a month, that is their lookout. Praying and fasting is religion, as I know it.
However, Islam has a legal system. Many parts of Islamic law are hostile to our legal system and our values. (The issues listed above are only a small sample) Legal rulings based upon Islamic law will start violence and warfare. Don't think so? Let's allow a stoning and see what happens. (By the way, the rocks can't be small enough to qualify as a pebble and not so large as to kill with one blow)
Rape is considered by psychologists to be an act of power, not sex. This 7th century law is all about power, particularly when you consider the other restrictions upon women and how Islamic law holds a ‘special’ place for them.
Within Islam, a large debate is going on to determine the meaning of the law allowing a man to beat his wife. Many interpret the phrases as ‘turning away’ or some other less hostile act. I really don’t give a damn. MY interpretation is that NO man is EVER allowed to hit ANY woman. (In fact, battery laws don’t allow a man to strike another man.) I do not see any need to argue this issue. If Islam wants to sort it out, that is their problem. I do not see ANY need to hold this debate in this country. The people of Oklahoma have seen these issues within Islamic law.
Oklahoma saw what happened in New Jersey and decided that they do not want ANY debate on these issues. Once again, I agree.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
know thy enemy
The first rule of warfare is to know thy enemy. It is important to define our enemy today because we have an enemy that is at war against us, even if many refuse to believe this.
It cannot be disputed that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11. This suicide attack was only a repeat of numerous suicide attacks that had been launched elsewhere throughout the world. After 9/11, suicide attacks were repeated in a number of other countries as well. These suicide attackers were supported from organizations that shared and inspired their actions. These attackers and their supportive organizations all have one thing in common: They are all Muslims. More specifically, they all believe in Islamic nationalism.
Islamic nationalism is similar to any other form of nationalism in that the population supports and believes in a certain system of governance. In modern terms, nationalism is centered on the nation-state. Nationalism is definitive as being Canadian, or English, or German, etc. Islam fits this definition.
Islam is far more than a religion. Islam is a form of government with a legal system that is complete with jurisprudence that goes back close to 1400 years. This is more than a millennia longer than ANY other modern nation. Islam has an economic system and foreign policy. Also like a modern nation, Islam fields an army to protect its interests. I call those who are supportive of this form of government an 'Islamist'. Or one who is an Islamic nationalist.
Islamic nationalists are our enemy. These are the people who support Islamic government. The reason I consider these to be our enemy is because Islam does not recognize the authority, responsibilities, or the geographical area of ANY modern nation-state. This is why ‘occupied’ lands can be anywhere in the world where Islam had control at one time or another. For Islamic nationalists, Islam is THE only true form of government. This ‘Nation of Islam’ is at open war against ALL other religions AND governments. Representatives of this ideology have even declared war openly like any other nation-state. These representatives and their organizations are fielding armed groups (Which I call their ‘army’) that are launching attacks upon our country and the other nations in the entire world. This is the enemy that we must defeat. Or else become part of the ‘Nation of Islam’.
It cannot be disputed that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11. This suicide attack was only a repeat of numerous suicide attacks that had been launched elsewhere throughout the world. After 9/11, suicide attacks were repeated in a number of other countries as well. These suicide attackers were supported from organizations that shared and inspired their actions. These attackers and their supportive organizations all have one thing in common: They are all Muslims. More specifically, they all believe in Islamic nationalism.
Islamic nationalism is similar to any other form of nationalism in that the population supports and believes in a certain system of governance. In modern terms, nationalism is centered on the nation-state. Nationalism is definitive as being Canadian, or English, or German, etc. Islam fits this definition.
Islam is far more than a religion. Islam is a form of government with a legal system that is complete with jurisprudence that goes back close to 1400 years. This is more than a millennia longer than ANY other modern nation. Islam has an economic system and foreign policy. Also like a modern nation, Islam fields an army to protect its interests. I call those who are supportive of this form of government an 'Islamist'. Or one who is an Islamic nationalist.
Islamic nationalists are our enemy. These are the people who support Islamic government. The reason I consider these to be our enemy is because Islam does not recognize the authority, responsibilities, or the geographical area of ANY modern nation-state. This is why ‘occupied’ lands can be anywhere in the world where Islam had control at one time or another. For Islamic nationalists, Islam is THE only true form of government. This ‘Nation of Islam’ is at open war against ALL other religions AND governments. Representatives of this ideology have even declared war openly like any other nation-state. These representatives and their organizations are fielding armed groups (Which I call their ‘army’) that are launching attacks upon our country and the other nations in the entire world. This is the enemy that we must defeat. Or else become part of the ‘Nation of Islam’.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
World Crisis
During October 1962, the U.S. came the closest that we have ever been to a nuclear war. The ultimate factor that stopped the confrontation was the backing down of the Soviet Union. They literally turned their ships around so that they would not be running the U.S. naval blockade. The confrontation that would have occurred had they not turned around has been commonly accepted as open warfare between the U.S. and the Soviet Union over the placement of nuclear weapons in Cuba. Eventually, a deal was reached that allowed both sides to ‘save face’. The leader of the Soviet Union lost his job just two years later. The leader of the U.S. lost his life just a little over a year later.
The point that I would like to make here is that although it is less likely today that a confrontation between nuclear powers will get to the same level that we were at in October 1962, the possibility of deployment of nuclear weapons is actually much higher today than in 1962. The Soviet Union proved that they are interested in raising their grandchildren. A nuclear exchange would have meant virtual suicide for all of the parties involved and many bystanders as well. Maybe humanity would not be able to survive a full-scale nuclear exchange. The point here is that even though the Soviet Union represented our greatest enemy, both sides are not interested in fighting a war that would probably result in their own destruction. This risk is inherent in ALL wars, but the nuclear weapon makes the probability very likely, not to mention the speed of the event. Today’s Islamic enemies have no such scruples.
I have drawn a similarity between the repeated suicide attacks of today and that of the only prior occurrence in human history: That of Japan in the 1940’s. As with most comparisons, many differences and similarities exist. A point here is: Can you imagine Japan NOT using a nuclear weapon if they had one in 1945? The United States DID use our weapons, as many others would have. A major difference between this situation and 1962 was that open warfare already existed between the two combatants. In any case, the use of repeated suicide attack leads me to believe that not only do our enemies consider themselves to be already at war against us, but that the restraint of mutual survival does not exist today like it did in 1962.
I cannot imagine leaders of Islamic ideology ‘turning their ships around’ like the Soviet Union did in 1962. Another major problem we face today is that it is only a matter of time before one of these Islamic groups obtains an effective WMD. I find it more than likely that it (Or they) will be deployed as soon as practical.
The point that I would like to make here is that although it is less likely today that a confrontation between nuclear powers will get to the same level that we were at in October 1962, the possibility of deployment of nuclear weapons is actually much higher today than in 1962. The Soviet Union proved that they are interested in raising their grandchildren. A nuclear exchange would have meant virtual suicide for all of the parties involved and many bystanders as well. Maybe humanity would not be able to survive a full-scale nuclear exchange. The point here is that even though the Soviet Union represented our greatest enemy, both sides are not interested in fighting a war that would probably result in their own destruction. This risk is inherent in ALL wars, but the nuclear weapon makes the probability very likely, not to mention the speed of the event. Today’s Islamic enemies have no such scruples.
I have drawn a similarity between the repeated suicide attacks of today and that of the only prior occurrence in human history: That of Japan in the 1940’s. As with most comparisons, many differences and similarities exist. A point here is: Can you imagine Japan NOT using a nuclear weapon if they had one in 1945? The United States DID use our weapons, as many others would have. A major difference between this situation and 1962 was that open warfare already existed between the two combatants. In any case, the use of repeated suicide attack leads me to believe that not only do our enemies consider themselves to be already at war against us, but that the restraint of mutual survival does not exist today like it did in 1962.
I cannot imagine leaders of Islamic ideology ‘turning their ships around’ like the Soviet Union did in 1962. Another major problem we face today is that it is only a matter of time before one of these Islamic groups obtains an effective WMD. I find it more than likely that it (Or they) will be deployed as soon as practical.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Winning the war
The strategy of the United States government fighting terrorists today is that of using the ‘rule of law’ to establish law and order and stability. The front line is shifting to the police and FBI. The military will be downplayed, as our focus is shifted into law enforcement. The main problem here is that our enemy has a ‘rule of law’ that is inherently hostile to that of our own. In order to avoid open conflict, we are allowing our enemies to maintain and even expand a ‘rule of law’ that is hostile to that of our own. The differences are just so great that they cannot even co-exist without violent confrontation. This is primarily because ‘rule of law’ is cultural. Generally, this is the way that the people within that system want to live. And these ways of life are in conflict with each other, similar to that of the slave states and the free states within the U.S. in the nineteenth century. It is the Islamic terrorists who are attempting to force the Islamic legal system upon the rest of the world. The enemy that is forcing the issue is Islamic nationalism. This confrontation can only escalate, as wars are won by increasing the violence to a level the opposition either cannot or will not match.
People will defend their way of life through organized violence. (Up to and including organized warfare) The way of life that has been established under Islamic law has to change in order to rid the world of most if not all, of the international Islamic terrorists. Change of this sort will NOT occur naturally. Even within our own country, it took the most costly war in our history (Not even close) to change the way of life of the slave owner society. That way of life could no longer be tolerated. As was demonstrated by our own Civil War, history has demonstrated time and again that change of this type will not occur without violence and warfare. So the choice really boils down to this:
Do we adopt the legal ways of our enemies, or do they adopt ours? Please note that they have the same options and we can expect the same answer. I say that they MUST adopt the international definitions of the responsibilities of the nation-state and separation of church and state that this requires. Islam is NOT a NATION. It can have no enforcement of any kind. This requires the Islamic ‘rule of law’ to change drastically, and it must change today. Islamic nationalism IS the major root cause. To do anything else is not to pursue the war at the root causes.
If the root causes of ANY problem are not addressed, the problem will only become larger as time goes on. Today, this will require offensive, preemptive warfare to enforce the elimination of Islamic sovereignty. In other words, the governments that holds Islam as the rule of law, or is supportive of Islamic forces. Islam cannot field armies anymore. Those who believe that Islam can and should must be attacked and defeated. We must attack Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and such groups directly. Syria and Iran will have to change. As shown by their actions, Syria and Iran believe in political Islam as they are directly supporting organizations that are violently fighting for enforcement of the concepts that are so hostile to us. We need to wage conventional warfare. This will force our enemies to meet our soldiers in open combat. Only in this way can the war be kept conventional. It is only a matter of time before Islamic terrorist groups obtain and deploy an effective WMD.
Eventually, many other Islamic governments after Syria and Iran may have to follow, but this would be an important start. Please note that I find this to be very unlikely. Far more likely will be ineffective action and a continuing acceleration in Islamic terrorist capability. Until WMD are deployed. At that point, I consider it to be too late. I want to keep the war conventional. I sincerely doubt that this is possible. I still believe that the issues are just too large and too many people’s ways of life are involved to prevent this conflict from becoming World War III. After all, once WMD are deployed, what else can we and our enemies do except continue to escalate? No truce will end this matter, as has been shown by the countless truces in the Middle East.
People will defend their way of life through organized violence. (Up to and including organized warfare) The way of life that has been established under Islamic law has to change in order to rid the world of most if not all, of the international Islamic terrorists. Change of this sort will NOT occur naturally. Even within our own country, it took the most costly war in our history (Not even close) to change the way of life of the slave owner society. That way of life could no longer be tolerated. As was demonstrated by our own Civil War, history has demonstrated time and again that change of this type will not occur without violence and warfare. So the choice really boils down to this:
Do we adopt the legal ways of our enemies, or do they adopt ours? Please note that they have the same options and we can expect the same answer. I say that they MUST adopt the international definitions of the responsibilities of the nation-state and separation of church and state that this requires. Islam is NOT a NATION. It can have no enforcement of any kind. This requires the Islamic ‘rule of law’ to change drastically, and it must change today. Islamic nationalism IS the major root cause. To do anything else is not to pursue the war at the root causes.
If the root causes of ANY problem are not addressed, the problem will only become larger as time goes on. Today, this will require offensive, preemptive warfare to enforce the elimination of Islamic sovereignty. In other words, the governments that holds Islam as the rule of law, or is supportive of Islamic forces. Islam cannot field armies anymore. Those who believe that Islam can and should must be attacked and defeated. We must attack Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and such groups directly. Syria and Iran will have to change. As shown by their actions, Syria and Iran believe in political Islam as they are directly supporting organizations that are violently fighting for enforcement of the concepts that are so hostile to us. We need to wage conventional warfare. This will force our enemies to meet our soldiers in open combat. Only in this way can the war be kept conventional. It is only a matter of time before Islamic terrorist groups obtain and deploy an effective WMD.
Eventually, many other Islamic governments after Syria and Iran may have to follow, but this would be an important start. Please note that I find this to be very unlikely. Far more likely will be ineffective action and a continuing acceleration in Islamic terrorist capability. Until WMD are deployed. At that point, I consider it to be too late. I want to keep the war conventional. I sincerely doubt that this is possible. I still believe that the issues are just too large and too many people’s ways of life are involved to prevent this conflict from becoming World War III. After all, once WMD are deployed, what else can we and our enemies do except continue to escalate? No truce will end this matter, as has been shown by the countless truces in the Middle East.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Gitmo detainees to be held in jail
I posted this 4/2/09 and thought it appropriate after the recent court ruling:
A jail suitable for Gitmo detainees is supposedly in Alexandria, VA. A move here will relieve the U.S. of the international burden that Gitmo represents. However, I can see Islamists seeing this as a victory. Having their captured men near Washington D.C.? This is next to and inside the political capital of the infidel enemy. This will give them a much greater status than we should give. Despite assurances to the contrary, politics will play more of a role here, distorting the importance of issues.
Jail is NOT where we want to place the 21st century versions of the pirates of the 16th century. They were generally hung from the nearest yardarm. Today we cannot do this. An island with complete isolation is about the closest way without executing them. Placing them into our jail system opens us up to additional assault from within. Jails are ALWAYS filled with people with revolutionary views. The idea behind a jail is to hold someone who is dangerous and rehabilitate him or her to the point where they can be released into the public and do no more harm. A few of the detainees at Gitmo may be rehabilitated, but the majority is not. It would be like taking Japanese soldiers in 1944 and attempting to rehabilitate them while the war was still going on.
The point is that these men will use the opportunity to convert others to their cause. And jail is the perfect place for them to obtain a receptive audience. If anyone believes that we can control this, they do not fully comprehend the commitment these men have, nor of the support around the world this effort would be receiving. Remember how Germany assisted Lenin in his move back into Russia? They needed him to stir up trouble for Russia during World War I. He helped trigger the Russian Civil War and Russian withdrawal from World War I altogether. It almost won the war for Germany. It caused incalculable problems in Russia for generations afterward. If it can be done, our enemies today will not hesitate to do it. We will be making a mistake to assist them in anyway.
A jail suitable for Gitmo detainees is supposedly in Alexandria, VA. A move here will relieve the U.S. of the international burden that Gitmo represents. However, I can see Islamists seeing this as a victory. Having their captured men near Washington D.C.? This is next to and inside the political capital of the infidel enemy. This will give them a much greater status than we should give. Despite assurances to the contrary, politics will play more of a role here, distorting the importance of issues.
Jail is NOT where we want to place the 21st century versions of the pirates of the 16th century. They were generally hung from the nearest yardarm. Today we cannot do this. An island with complete isolation is about the closest way without executing them. Placing them into our jail system opens us up to additional assault from within. Jails are ALWAYS filled with people with revolutionary views. The idea behind a jail is to hold someone who is dangerous and rehabilitate him or her to the point where they can be released into the public and do no more harm. A few of the detainees at Gitmo may be rehabilitated, but the majority is not. It would be like taking Japanese soldiers in 1944 and attempting to rehabilitate them while the war was still going on.
The point is that these men will use the opportunity to convert others to their cause. And jail is the perfect place for them to obtain a receptive audience. If anyone believes that we can control this, they do not fully comprehend the commitment these men have, nor of the support around the world this effort would be receiving. Remember how Germany assisted Lenin in his move back into Russia? They needed him to stir up trouble for Russia during World War I. He helped trigger the Russian Civil War and Russian withdrawal from World War I altogether. It almost won the war for Germany. It caused incalculable problems in Russia for generations afterward. If it can be done, our enemies today will not hesitate to do it. We will be making a mistake to assist them in anyway.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Civilian enforcement against Islamic 'extremists'
In the United States, we have very few ‘extremists’. Organizations like the KKK only have a miniscule percentage of the population that agree with their ideology. One major problem in the war today is that many in the U.S. believe that Muslim ‘extremists’ are very few, as we have here in the U.S. In addition, support for the "KKK" type organizations in the U.S. is also limited to only a few. This would lead anyone who follows this line of thinking to believe that civilian police enforcement agencies are the best way to fight them. This is a vast mistake. The police will NOT win this war.
One example is the woman who was beheaded in Buffalo in February 2009. She had a restraining order against her husband. Even though the threat was known and even acted upon, the police were unable to prevent her murder. A basic problem is that until a crime has been committed, the police cannot take action. And even then, they lack the resources necessary. Then we have to consider the percentage of the population that is a threat.
A Minnesota man was the attacker in a suicide bombing in February 2009 in Sudan. If we took a percentage of the overall population of the U.S., this would be an isolated incident. However, if we use the percentage of the population of the Muslim community that he belonged to in Minnesota as a base, we can see a much greater threat. Remember, in the U.S., the number of Islamic ‘extremists’ and people who support the ideology can be expected to be a lower percentage of the Muslim population than what we would find in an Islamic country, like Saudi Arabia. And even within the U.S., the percentage of Muslims who agree with at least some of the ideology of the ‘extremists’ is dangerously high. This is common throughout the world where Muslims have migrated. Civilian enforcement agencies are unequipped to handle this, as is being shown by the violence that is beginning to occur in Europe and is already present throughout the Islamic world.
One example is the woman who was beheaded in Buffalo in February 2009. She had a restraining order against her husband. Even though the threat was known and even acted upon, the police were unable to prevent her murder. A basic problem is that until a crime has been committed, the police cannot take action. And even then, they lack the resources necessary. Then we have to consider the percentage of the population that is a threat.
A Minnesota man was the attacker in a suicide bombing in February 2009 in Sudan. If we took a percentage of the overall population of the U.S., this would be an isolated incident. However, if we use the percentage of the population of the Muslim community that he belonged to in Minnesota as a base, we can see a much greater threat. Remember, in the U.S., the number of Islamic ‘extremists’ and people who support the ideology can be expected to be a lower percentage of the Muslim population than what we would find in an Islamic country, like Saudi Arabia. And even within the U.S., the percentage of Muslims who agree with at least some of the ideology of the ‘extremists’ is dangerously high. This is common throughout the world where Muslims have migrated. Civilian enforcement agencies are unequipped to handle this, as is being shown by the violence that is beginning to occur in Europe and is already present throughout the Islamic world.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
"We submit to God, no one else."
I read the following quote recently by a Muslim woman who made this point: "We submit to God, no one else."
I find this revealing in a number of ways. One is the idea of submission. Please note how this attitude will encourage one not to adapt to any new environment. Submission is giving in, so why would immigrants (who believe that they come from a legal system that was set up by God) submit to the new culture and environment (Set up by humans) they now live in? In addition, how could anyone expect someone to prosper in the new environment with this attitude?
Implied in this quote is the idea that Islam as a form of governance trumps all the governments in that the Koran is the direct word of God. Seeing as she submits only to God, then it is implied that she submits only to Islamic law, which is spelled out in the Koran. Seeing as God set up the Islamic system of laws and government, they are perfect and not changeable. This attitude is commonly seen throughout the Islamic world.
If this person who was quoted believes in religion as we in the 'West' see religion, we would understand that she is talking about personal behavior, not government. However, Islam IS a form of government with a complete legal system. As such, it is implied that she will not submit to the new rules imposed by a different government. (Other than Islam) And that she will actively work to make the new environment change into one that is 'submitting to God'. In other words, the adapted country must submit to the government and legal system of Islam.
The spark for violence is that Islam is a complete way of life. I have studied the biographies of thousands of soldiers. They became soldiers to protect their way of life. History is full of wars fought because of change to way of life, or threatened change to way of life. This is a major contribution to the many wars and violent confrontations where Islam is in contact with the rest of the non-Islamic world. This is primarily because Islamic way of life as spelled out in the Koran and Islamic law is hostile to just about everything else. If you have any shred of doubt, do not take my word. Look at Islamic law. You will not need to look all that closely.
I find this revealing in a number of ways. One is the idea of submission. Please note how this attitude will encourage one not to adapt to any new environment. Submission is giving in, so why would immigrants (who believe that they come from a legal system that was set up by God) submit to the new culture and environment (Set up by humans) they now live in? In addition, how could anyone expect someone to prosper in the new environment with this attitude?
Implied in this quote is the idea that Islam as a form of governance trumps all the governments in that the Koran is the direct word of God. Seeing as she submits only to God, then it is implied that she submits only to Islamic law, which is spelled out in the Koran. Seeing as God set up the Islamic system of laws and government, they are perfect and not changeable. This attitude is commonly seen throughout the Islamic world.
If this person who was quoted believes in religion as we in the 'West' see religion, we would understand that she is talking about personal behavior, not government. However, Islam IS a form of government with a complete legal system. As such, it is implied that she will not submit to the new rules imposed by a different government. (Other than Islam) And that she will actively work to make the new environment change into one that is 'submitting to God'. In other words, the adapted country must submit to the government and legal system of Islam.
The spark for violence is that Islam is a complete way of life. I have studied the biographies of thousands of soldiers. They became soldiers to protect their way of life. History is full of wars fought because of change to way of life, or threatened change to way of life. This is a major contribution to the many wars and violent confrontations where Islam is in contact with the rest of the non-Islamic world. This is primarily because Islamic way of life as spelled out in the Koran and Islamic law is hostile to just about everything else. If you have any shred of doubt, do not take my word. Look at Islamic law. You will not need to look all that closely.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Stoning
A friend and I had a discussion about some of the reasons for the war. Unfortunately, I did not present my case very well. I DID state the issue of stoning as one of the reasons for war. Both my friend and his wife disagreed. After all, why would anyone go to war over stoning?
I used the example of slavery. Slavery was and is morally wrong. However, I am also a firm believer in the right of other countries and cultures doing what they deem are correct, even when the ideas conflict with my own personal values. As long as they are not forcing their ideas and system upon others, they should be able to live their lives as they see fit. The problem here is that slavery is one of those human issues that do not sit still. The South rose up and fought the U.S. Civil War because President Lincoln had stated that he did not intend to allow slavery to continue to grow. Any new states admitted into the Union would be free states. Time was now against the South. As time went on and new states were admitted into the Union, the South’s political position would only deteriorate. The best time when they where the strongest to resist was right then. So they acted. I consider stoning to be a similar issue.
Stoning is an issue that is forcing submission. The person who dies is not the entire target. People can be executed in many ways. Stoning is particularly painful and brutal. This is so that others will not do what they did. It is a public lesson. Stoning also allows the public to become directly involved. The public themselves can throw rocks. Stoning is designed to force compliance; or else you will be the next one. This attitude is one that like slavery must be imposed upon others. I would expect that if half the U.S. allowed stoning and the other did not, we would eventually see another situation like 1860 where the country was divided and would likely go to war. Do not agree?
I know that this would not happen, but let us assume that a bill is passed in the U.S. Congress that would allow for stoning. It would be over my dead body before I allowed this practice in my country! No way in hell would I go along. In fact, I would literally take up stones! I WILL show up at a stoning and start throwing the rocks at the people who are throwing them at the victim! Then the knives would show up, followed quickly by firearms. This is why I say that stoning causes wars. If some organization began to stone ANYONE to death in this country and my government did not take violent action, I would have to. How can we expect others not to? And those who are against stoning are wrong for taking even violent action? In any case, we would have a war on our hands.
I used the example of slavery. Slavery was and is morally wrong. However, I am also a firm believer in the right of other countries and cultures doing what they deem are correct, even when the ideas conflict with my own personal values. As long as they are not forcing their ideas and system upon others, they should be able to live their lives as they see fit. The problem here is that slavery is one of those human issues that do not sit still. The South rose up and fought the U.S. Civil War because President Lincoln had stated that he did not intend to allow slavery to continue to grow. Any new states admitted into the Union would be free states. Time was now against the South. As time went on and new states were admitted into the Union, the South’s political position would only deteriorate. The best time when they where the strongest to resist was right then. So they acted. I consider stoning to be a similar issue.
Stoning is an issue that is forcing submission. The person who dies is not the entire target. People can be executed in many ways. Stoning is particularly painful and brutal. This is so that others will not do what they did. It is a public lesson. Stoning also allows the public to become directly involved. The public themselves can throw rocks. Stoning is designed to force compliance; or else you will be the next one. This attitude is one that like slavery must be imposed upon others. I would expect that if half the U.S. allowed stoning and the other did not, we would eventually see another situation like 1860 where the country was divided and would likely go to war. Do not agree?
I know that this would not happen, but let us assume that a bill is passed in the U.S. Congress that would allow for stoning. It would be over my dead body before I allowed this practice in my country! No way in hell would I go along. In fact, I would literally take up stones! I WILL show up at a stoning and start throwing the rocks at the people who are throwing them at the victim! Then the knives would show up, followed quickly by firearms. This is why I say that stoning causes wars. If some organization began to stone ANYONE to death in this country and my government did not take violent action, I would have to. How can we expect others not to? And those who are against stoning are wrong for taking even violent action? In any case, we would have a war on our hands.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
America is NOT at war with Islam
President Obama made this statement Tuesday when making a speech at the University of Indonesia. President Obama has said this before. Here we have the leader of a modern nation-state addressing the people of another nation and telling them that we are not at war against them. There is no question that President Obama was NOT speaking about the United States being at war against the nation of Indonesia. He is speaking about the "Nation of Islam". The thing that bothers me most about this statement is that President Obama is addressing Islam as if Islam were a national entity.
The United States is a sovereign government. As such, it may wage war against other sovereign governments. Who else could President Obama be referring to except the government of Indonesia? The only other entities that can possibly be involved are Islam as a form of government that the U.S. CAN declare and wage war against. President Obama is attempting to assure the population of this national entity that we are NOT (And NEVER will be) at war against them.
To recognize Islam in this way is very dangerous. After all, governments CAN wage war against each other. This implies that Islam has the authority to wage war. NO! Wars have been fought to decide issues like this. And the United States is NOT at war against the idea of Islam as a form of government? A major problem here is that Islam as a form of government, IS at war against the United States. Islam does not recognize ANY modern national government, or any of its responsibilities and authority. Then who the hell ARE we at war against? I thought that these "Radical Islamists" want to install Islam as a government.
The United States is a sovereign government. As such, it may wage war against other sovereign governments. Who else could President Obama be referring to except the government of Indonesia? The only other entities that can possibly be involved are Islam as a form of government that the U.S. CAN declare and wage war against. President Obama is attempting to assure the population of this national entity that we are NOT (And NEVER will be) at war against them.
To recognize Islam in this way is very dangerous. After all, governments CAN wage war against each other. This implies that Islam has the authority to wage war. NO! Wars have been fought to decide issues like this. And the United States is NOT at war against the idea of Islam as a form of government? A major problem here is that Islam as a form of government, IS at war against the United States. Islam does not recognize ANY modern national government, or any of its responsibilities and authority. Then who the hell ARE we at war against? I thought that these "Radical Islamists" want to install Islam as a government.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Origin of Islamic terrorism
Like many other Americans, after 9/11, I began to take a much closer look at Islam. The more I studied Islam, the more that I understand where Islamic terrorism originates. It took a few years. However, I can't expect anyone else to go at the same pace that I went.
I have noted the use of the term "Good Muslims". This is a mistake. Not that it is incorrect. More that it does not matter. "Good Southerners" fought for slavery. "Good Germans" and "Good Japanese" fought for aggression in World War II. The very fact that people are "Good" people is not vitally important. What is important is that Muslims worldwide are NOT pressing their governments to wage war against Islamic terrorism.
Many Muslims support HAMAS and other Islamic nationalist organizations, even if not openly. If 'fundamentalist' Muslims were as small a percentage of the population as 'Fundamentalist Christians' are in the U.S., these terrorist organizations would dry up. They would scarcely be around at all. How many KKK type organizations do we have here in the US? These organizations are certainly not nearly as powerful as Islamic ‘fundamentalist’ organizations. The percentage of the population that actively supports the KKK and similar organizations are nowhere near the percentage of the Muslim population who supports Islamic terrorist organizations, nor do the ‘Western’ terrorist organizations obtain nearly the same amount of dollars. In no way can we believe that the effectiveness and impact of the KKK and ‘Christian terrorism’ is anything similar to Islamic terrorism. Let’s compare on a more obvious level.
To compare the KKK and HAMAS as armed forces is ridiculous. The firepower of HAMAS and Hezbollah and how many other Islamic organizations compared to the tanks and artillery of the KKK? Yes, and we have priests forming and leading combat units in this country. These units wage war to rid us of ‘occupied’ Christian land, and mobilize an irregular force to protect Christian ‘waters’? The Catholic Church is NOT a national government. It does not attempt to behave like one. The "Nation of Islam" certainly acts like a government, and millions of Muslims appear to believe that it is a government.
Throughout the world, Muslims wage war to protect the national interests of Islam. This is the actual root of the many problems. The source of Islamic terrorism is Islamic nationalism.
P.S. The world cannot continue to accept a religion that has followers that believe and behave like the ‘religion’ is a national government.
I have noted the use of the term "Good Muslims". This is a mistake. Not that it is incorrect. More that it does not matter. "Good Southerners" fought for slavery. "Good Germans" and "Good Japanese" fought for aggression in World War II. The very fact that people are "Good" people is not vitally important. What is important is that Muslims worldwide are NOT pressing their governments to wage war against Islamic terrorism.
Many Muslims support HAMAS and other Islamic nationalist organizations, even if not openly. If 'fundamentalist' Muslims were as small a percentage of the population as 'Fundamentalist Christians' are in the U.S., these terrorist organizations would dry up. They would scarcely be around at all. How many KKK type organizations do we have here in the US? These organizations are certainly not nearly as powerful as Islamic ‘fundamentalist’ organizations. The percentage of the population that actively supports the KKK and similar organizations are nowhere near the percentage of the Muslim population who supports Islamic terrorist organizations, nor do the ‘Western’ terrorist organizations obtain nearly the same amount of dollars. In no way can we believe that the effectiveness and impact of the KKK and ‘Christian terrorism’ is anything similar to Islamic terrorism. Let’s compare on a more obvious level.
To compare the KKK and HAMAS as armed forces is ridiculous. The firepower of HAMAS and Hezbollah and how many other Islamic organizations compared to the tanks and artillery of the KKK? Yes, and we have priests forming and leading combat units in this country. These units wage war to rid us of ‘occupied’ Christian land, and mobilize an irregular force to protect Christian ‘waters’? The Catholic Church is NOT a national government. It does not attempt to behave like one. The "Nation of Islam" certainly acts like a government, and millions of Muslims appear to believe that it is a government.
Throughout the world, Muslims wage war to protect the national interests of Islam. This is the actual root of the many problems. The source of Islamic terrorism is Islamic nationalism.
P.S. The world cannot continue to accept a religion that has followers that believe and behave like the ‘religion’ is a national government.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Islam causes wars: Conclusion
Most of the peaceful phrases in the Koran were spoken in the early stages of the formation of Islam. The Koran specifically states that in cases where the ‘laws’ are contradicting, the later rules are to be followed. (The Koran is NOT organized by when the phrases were spoken, but by the length of the phrase) The phrases that were spoken in the later times are the ones that mainly concern governance and foreign policy. After all, this is when Islam held the power of government. This is also where the war against the U.S. begins.
As far as the ‘Nation of Islam’ was concerned, the United States was just another infidel country. A big change occurred during the mid-20th century with the U.S. support of Israel. Even then, the United States was only indirectly involved. In 1982 and 1983 when the U.S. troops were in Lebanon, we were violating Muslim land directly with our ground forces and had to be thrown out. From Islam’s point of view, the U.S. was successfully thrown out. Then in 1991, Iraq invades the national sovereignty of Kuwait. When U.S. troops moved into Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries in order to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, we became ‘occupiers’. Even if the government invited us in. Islam does not recognize the authority of the modern national government. Ever since then, Islam has been at war against us because we continue to be ‘occupiers’.
The Islamic terrorist groups are the ‘army’ of Islam. These are not ‘extremists’ as much as they are followers of the Islamic system of governance that overrides any and all national governments. Bin Laden is an excellent example. He believes (as do many others) that the sovereignty of Islam is being challenged. Historically, sovereignty issues have started plenty of wars.
Most Muslims worldwide are ‘good’ people. They do not want war. However, they will fight for their way of life. Like the ‘good’ southerners in 1862 and the ‘good’ Germans and Japanese in 1944, many are already fighting against a foreign influence that is in conflict with Islamic governance and ideology. Naturally, Islamic reaction is hostile. Hostility does not necessarily lead to war, but the tendency is toward violence simply because the human frustrations that Islam imposes upon its followers requires an outlet. Anger is one of the few emotions that appear at least to an outsider, to be acceptable. Anger easily leads to violence. In addition, violence is more common at least in part because Islam has a relatively low threshold for waging war. War tends to make people chose. Most will naturally chose the side that they live with and understand. (Even if evil, like slavery) We can expect that many Muslims if not most, to side with Islam in any open conflict. Human nature demands this. This helps explain why so many others believe that we are creating new enemies by our actions ‘over there’.
You may not agree with many of the reasons that I have listed as to why ‘political’ Islam causes wars. Many contain overlapping features. Yet even if you disagree on a number of these issues, this is enough to explain why peace has been so elusive in the Middle East and with Israel in particular. Too many issues within Islam are of a nationalist nature to NOT cause organized violence. It is noticeable how Islam and the modern national government do not get along. Just look at how well the governments that are host to Islamic organizations like HAMAS and Hezbollah relate with those very same groups. They may be in agreement on a number of important issues, but the government is supposed to be accountable for the actions of it’s own people within its borders. These groups are NOT accountable and this creates a very serious conflict of interest. Nationalist issues of this type have caused wars and will cause wars in order to obtain a resolution.
The issue of separation of church and state has in the past and will in the future, trigger wars. Religions cannot muster armies today like they could in the 7th century. Only national governments can raise and deploy armies. The fact that Islam is doing so today (as if we are still in the 7th century) creates national sovereignty issues that historically have taken wars to resolve. On top of this, Islam in general has a very low threshold for waging war. The Koran allows for the waging of war far more easily than ANY modern government would consider. The nation-states of today are far more powerful and numerous. As a result, warfare is far more destructive today. This makes war much more dangerous and more of a threat to each governmental body than when Islam was born, when governments as we know them today did not exist at all.
Notice how Zionism is a term commonly used by leaders in the Muslim world to describe the political nature of the ‘Nation of Israel’. The ‘Nation of Islam’ can easily identify with this concept because this is precisely what ‘political’ Islam is. One key difference is that the nation of Israel is a modern national government whereas the nation of Islam is not.
I have studied wars for more than 40 years. I have never studied one where so many GOOD reasons exist for violent conflict in order to resolve. Until one side or the other implements some very large changes, this war can only be just beginning.
I am fearful of what can possibly occur after a severe economic downturn. The war is much, much larger than what is being fought in these various conflicts where the Islamic terrorist groups (The Islamic army) are active. The U.S. is only directly involved in a few of them. A major downturn in the world economy could easily be the match that starts a major conflict. It has been a long time since the last major, world war. History has demonstrated that major wars occur every so often. On top of this, it is only a matter of time before one of these terror groups obtains and deploys an effective WMD. Control of the war can easily be lost at that point. It will become difficult, if not impossible to prevent the war from escalating. After all, escalation is generally how wars are won. Time is NOT on our side and the U.S. government is playing for time. Wrong strategy. We are in big trouble if our President doesn't figure it out fast enough.
The sovereign ‘Nation of Islam’ IS the cause of much of the warfare that is involving the Muslim world today. To use President Lincoln’s words (With a different intent), before this war is over, the army of Islam (Islamic sovereignty) ‘must perish from this earth’. It truly is them or us. I choose US. (United States) Naturally.
As far as the ‘Nation of Islam’ was concerned, the United States was just another infidel country. A big change occurred during the mid-20th century with the U.S. support of Israel. Even then, the United States was only indirectly involved. In 1982 and 1983 when the U.S. troops were in Lebanon, we were violating Muslim land directly with our ground forces and had to be thrown out. From Islam’s point of view, the U.S. was successfully thrown out. Then in 1991, Iraq invades the national sovereignty of Kuwait. When U.S. troops moved into Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries in order to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, we became ‘occupiers’. Even if the government invited us in. Islam does not recognize the authority of the modern national government. Ever since then, Islam has been at war against us because we continue to be ‘occupiers’.
The Islamic terrorist groups are the ‘army’ of Islam. These are not ‘extremists’ as much as they are followers of the Islamic system of governance that overrides any and all national governments. Bin Laden is an excellent example. He believes (as do many others) that the sovereignty of Islam is being challenged. Historically, sovereignty issues have started plenty of wars.
Most Muslims worldwide are ‘good’ people. They do not want war. However, they will fight for their way of life. Like the ‘good’ southerners in 1862 and the ‘good’ Germans and Japanese in 1944, many are already fighting against a foreign influence that is in conflict with Islamic governance and ideology. Naturally, Islamic reaction is hostile. Hostility does not necessarily lead to war, but the tendency is toward violence simply because the human frustrations that Islam imposes upon its followers requires an outlet. Anger is one of the few emotions that appear at least to an outsider, to be acceptable. Anger easily leads to violence. In addition, violence is more common at least in part because Islam has a relatively low threshold for waging war. War tends to make people chose. Most will naturally chose the side that they live with and understand. (Even if evil, like slavery) We can expect that many Muslims if not most, to side with Islam in any open conflict. Human nature demands this. This helps explain why so many others believe that we are creating new enemies by our actions ‘over there’.
You may not agree with many of the reasons that I have listed as to why ‘political’ Islam causes wars. Many contain overlapping features. Yet even if you disagree on a number of these issues, this is enough to explain why peace has been so elusive in the Middle East and with Israel in particular. Too many issues within Islam are of a nationalist nature to NOT cause organized violence. It is noticeable how Islam and the modern national government do not get along. Just look at how well the governments that are host to Islamic organizations like HAMAS and Hezbollah relate with those very same groups. They may be in agreement on a number of important issues, but the government is supposed to be accountable for the actions of it’s own people within its borders. These groups are NOT accountable and this creates a very serious conflict of interest. Nationalist issues of this type have caused wars and will cause wars in order to obtain a resolution.
The issue of separation of church and state has in the past and will in the future, trigger wars. Religions cannot muster armies today like they could in the 7th century. Only national governments can raise and deploy armies. The fact that Islam is doing so today (as if we are still in the 7th century) creates national sovereignty issues that historically have taken wars to resolve. On top of this, Islam in general has a very low threshold for waging war. The Koran allows for the waging of war far more easily than ANY modern government would consider. The nation-states of today are far more powerful and numerous. As a result, warfare is far more destructive today. This makes war much more dangerous and more of a threat to each governmental body than when Islam was born, when governments as we know them today did not exist at all.
Notice how Zionism is a term commonly used by leaders in the Muslim world to describe the political nature of the ‘Nation of Israel’. The ‘Nation of Islam’ can easily identify with this concept because this is precisely what ‘political’ Islam is. One key difference is that the nation of Israel is a modern national government whereas the nation of Islam is not.
I have studied wars for more than 40 years. I have never studied one where so many GOOD reasons exist for violent conflict in order to resolve. Until one side or the other implements some very large changes, this war can only be just beginning.
I am fearful of what can possibly occur after a severe economic downturn. The war is much, much larger than what is being fought in these various conflicts where the Islamic terrorist groups (The Islamic army) are active. The U.S. is only directly involved in a few of them. A major downturn in the world economy could easily be the match that starts a major conflict. It has been a long time since the last major, world war. History has demonstrated that major wars occur every so often. On top of this, it is only a matter of time before one of these terror groups obtains and deploys an effective WMD. Control of the war can easily be lost at that point. It will become difficult, if not impossible to prevent the war from escalating. After all, escalation is generally how wars are won. Time is NOT on our side and the U.S. government is playing for time. Wrong strategy. We are in big trouble if our President doesn't figure it out fast enough.
The sovereign ‘Nation of Islam’ IS the cause of much of the warfare that is involving the Muslim world today. To use President Lincoln’s words (With a different intent), before this war is over, the army of Islam (Islamic sovereignty) ‘must perish from this earth’. It truly is them or us. I choose US. (United States) Naturally.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Loss of the Republic
I guess that much additional stress has been added this election cycle because I do not see the leadership of this country as responding to the will of the people. Very few issues actually make it to the public's general notice. Republicans have wanted to place Social Security on a sounder financial basis since the 1980's. Twice it was proposed (Ronald Regan and George W. Bush) and both times the United States population said 'NO!'. I consider President Clinton to have been a moderate for just this reason. The U.S. public said 'NO!' in the 1994 Health Care debate, and he backed off. The fact that the American public said 'NO!' this past February on Health Care (Again) and the U.S. Congress said "yes" and did it anyway is dangerous. This is where we can lose the Republic. This is why I am concerned about the loss of the Republic within my lifetime.
Next time the Republicans get a vast majority, they can just carve up Social Security? Or better yet, why not just repeal Social Security altogether? If that can't be done, then something major is wrong with our legal system. Or else we lose the Republic because it would take dictatorial power to make the necessary changes. Both are losing scenarios. Not to mention that we have a major external war brewing that in a few years is going to get out of control. Wars NEVER stay stable. They may be stable for periods of time, but they NEVER stay that way forever. It is one of the few times the word is true. In any case, the next few years will be decisive if we are going to prevent the change of the Republic that can’t be reversed. If that change has not already occured.
Next time the Republicans get a vast majority, they can just carve up Social Security? Or better yet, why not just repeal Social Security altogether? If that can't be done, then something major is wrong with our legal system. Or else we lose the Republic because it would take dictatorial power to make the necessary changes. Both are losing scenarios. Not to mention that we have a major external war brewing that in a few years is going to get out of control. Wars NEVER stay stable. They may be stable for periods of time, but they NEVER stay that way forever. It is one of the few times the word is true. In any case, the next few years will be decisive if we are going to prevent the change of the Republic that can’t be reversed. If that change has not already occured.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Islam causes war: Reason number 7
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. In 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. As a result, loyalty to Islamic laws and culture is far more established than any government that has been put in place since. (Bin Lauden is a good example. He is 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’. The modern world has no place for a ‘religion’ that can declare war. The modern world cannot accept ANY ‘religion’ that can field it’s own armies to protect it’s 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 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 area 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 power. Giving this up will not come without a fight. Historically, this is another very common reason for wars being fought.
In Iraq recently, an election was held. One person 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. An example: The Catholic Church is against abortion. However, the Church as NO power to overrule the law of the United States. As along 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 way Imams obtain this power is by fielding their own armies. This must end, TODAY. People do not give up that kind of power by choice. Once again, historically it has been shown that it will take warfare to resolve. Reason number seven in my list of why Islam causes wars is the lack of separation of religion and governance. Concerning Islam, they are the same.
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. In 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. As a result, loyalty to Islamic laws and culture is far more established than any government that has been put in place since. (Bin Lauden is a good example. He is 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’. The modern world has no place for a ‘religion’ that can declare war. The modern world cannot accept ANY ‘religion’ that can field it’s own armies to protect it’s 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 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 area 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 power. Giving this up will not come without a fight. Historically, this is another very common reason for wars being fought.
In Iraq recently, an election was held. One person 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. An example: The Catholic Church is against abortion. However, the Church as NO power to overrule the law of the United States. As along 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 way Imams obtain this power is by fielding their own armies. This must end, TODAY. People do not give up that kind of power by choice. Once again, historically it has been shown that it will take warfare to resolve. Reason number seven in my list of why Islam causes wars is the lack of separation of religion and governance. Concerning Islam, they are the same.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Are we more united than two years ago?
The topic of this blog is modern warfare. I generally try to avoid politics, particularly internal politics. This is quite impossible in that armed conflict concerning the United States will have a large political element. Even then, I do attempt to minimize political influence in my views. This is in itself a distortion, but one that I want to live with, in that I believe that politics and warfare do not mix very well.
The war is apparently becoming quieter. I say this because of a declining amount of overt combat involving U.S. troops has been taking place over the past 3 or 4 years. In the past 2 years, the disengagement of U.S. forces in Iraq and the complete withdrawal of combat units from Iraq. Even though forces are up in Afghanistan, overall combat is down. The rules of engagement limit offensive action to a fraction of what is required. The knowledge that the eventual draw down of forces in Afghanistan will take place next year will lead many people to the illusion that the war is either over, or that it is fading away and will disappear. What is scary is that the war is going to explode again, maybe even more significantly than 9/11. But what also concerns me is that the United States is politically more divided today than we were 2 years ago, before the administration of President Obama.
I believe that the Republican Party is much stronger and more united than 2 years ago. All the things that have occurred have actually united many Americans against President Obama’s agenda. The overruling of the American Public’s view against Health Care and passing it anyway is a signature event. However, at the same time, I believe that the United States is actually much more divided than we were two years ago. This is just my take on things, but I have noticed a much higher level of intensity concerning the news. I watch CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and FOX news. I read the Chicago Tribune, and other publications along with getting news from the Internet. More people seem to be yelling at each other. Listening to the other side seems to have become more of a problem. Political views appear to have hardened. Not so much that people are changing their position as much as they are not even interested in hearing what the other has to say. Maybe the election has something to do with this. In any case, it does seem like this election is continuing a pattern of increasingly hostile ads and hostile discourse. It can only reach a certain level before all communication is accusations and no listening to the other side other than how to turn it against the other. A point is reachable where the opposite party becomes more of an enemy threat than outside influences or organizations. Civil War becomes a distinct possibility. Or if the external threat is overt, military reverses can actually help one side and not the other.
Once again, this is my take. I believe that the leadership of the United States has not been listening to our people about important issues. The fact that Congress and the President ignored the U.S. public outcry about Health Care and passed it over their objections is one of the most visible. It certainly pissed me off. I have been angry about politics before, but I have never seen our government so unresponsive to the public’s views. It makes sense that this ignoring of others is now being seen within our population’s view of politics. America has freedom of speech. If this trend of ignoring the public continues, this freedom along with many others may very well be in jeopardy. After all, if no one is listening, why bother? Not to mention that it is only the next step to openly discourage or penalize opposing views.
I had thought that President Obama was elected because he will be able to unite the United States. He will bring others together including our foreign enemies and allies. However, President Obama is not a moderate. His actions point to an extreme view on many issues. I find it interesting that he defines the enemy as ‘extreme fundamentalist’. To me, this is exactly what he appears to be. This leads me to believe that he divides much more effectively than he unites. In fact, it looks more like he is better at uniting his enemies rather than his allies. This concerns me even more when I look at the international situation and the war.
The war is apparently becoming quieter. I say this because of a declining amount of overt combat involving U.S. troops has been taking place over the past 3 or 4 years. In the past 2 years, the disengagement of U.S. forces in Iraq and the complete withdrawal of combat units from Iraq. Even though forces are up in Afghanistan, overall combat is down. The rules of engagement limit offensive action to a fraction of what is required. The knowledge that the eventual draw down of forces in Afghanistan will take place next year will lead many people to the illusion that the war is either over, or that it is fading away and will disappear. What is scary is that the war is going to explode again, maybe even more significantly than 9/11. But what also concerns me is that the United States is politically more divided today than we were 2 years ago, before the administration of President Obama.
I believe that the Republican Party is much stronger and more united than 2 years ago. All the things that have occurred have actually united many Americans against President Obama’s agenda. The overruling of the American Public’s view against Health Care and passing it anyway is a signature event. However, at the same time, I believe that the United States is actually much more divided than we were two years ago. This is just my take on things, but I have noticed a much higher level of intensity concerning the news. I watch CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and FOX news. I read the Chicago Tribune, and other publications along with getting news from the Internet. More people seem to be yelling at each other. Listening to the other side seems to have become more of a problem. Political views appear to have hardened. Not so much that people are changing their position as much as they are not even interested in hearing what the other has to say. Maybe the election has something to do with this. In any case, it does seem like this election is continuing a pattern of increasingly hostile ads and hostile discourse. It can only reach a certain level before all communication is accusations and no listening to the other side other than how to turn it against the other. A point is reachable where the opposite party becomes more of an enemy threat than outside influences or organizations. Civil War becomes a distinct possibility. Or if the external threat is overt, military reverses can actually help one side and not the other.
Once again, this is my take. I believe that the leadership of the United States has not been listening to our people about important issues. The fact that Congress and the President ignored the U.S. public outcry about Health Care and passed it over their objections is one of the most visible. It certainly pissed me off. I have been angry about politics before, but I have never seen our government so unresponsive to the public’s views. It makes sense that this ignoring of others is now being seen within our population’s view of politics. America has freedom of speech. If this trend of ignoring the public continues, this freedom along with many others may very well be in jeopardy. After all, if no one is listening, why bother? Not to mention that it is only the next step to openly discourage or penalize opposing views.
I had thought that President Obama was elected because he will be able to unite the United States. He will bring others together including our foreign enemies and allies. However, President Obama is not a moderate. His actions point to an extreme view on many issues. I find it interesting that he defines the enemy as ‘extreme fundamentalist’. To me, this is exactly what he appears to be. This leads me to believe that he divides much more effectively than he unites. In fact, it looks more like he is better at uniting his enemies rather than his allies. This concerns me even more when I look at the international situation and the war.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Islam causes war: Reason number 6
The house of war:
"In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses, the house of Islam and the house of war." (B.Lewis)
Not a great deal to comment on here. If tradition sees the non-Islamic world as being in ‘the house of war’, then few if any excuses are required to start a war against infidels. 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. And 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 anther area where Imams obtain authority from the ‘Nation of Islam’. As mentioned in a prior post, the very fact that Imams have this authority is in direct conflict with the modern nation-state.
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.
"In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses, the house of Islam and the house of war." (B.Lewis)
Not a great deal to comment on here. If tradition sees the non-Islamic world as being in ‘the house of war’, then few if any excuses are required to start a war against infidels. 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. And 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 anther area where Imams obtain authority from the ‘Nation of Islam’. As mentioned in a prior post, the very fact that Imams have this authority is in direct conflict with the modern nation-state.
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.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Islam causes war: Reason number 5
Stoning people to death
I mention this as a cause of war because of the violent resistance that is being seen when attempting to get rid of this ‘law’. Riots occurred in Nigeria in 2006 because the court refused to have a woman who was convicted of adultery stoned to death. Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 40% Christian. (10% ‘other’) This ‘law’ is an important one because similar problems have been seen in other parts of the world where attempts to ignore this same punishment have triggered responses similar to what Nigeria witnessed. I guess if you can’t throw rocks at someone, then it is OK to throw rocks at something else. After all, that aggressive urge has to be fulfilled somehow.
The Koran specifies that the rocks must be small enough not to kill with one blow and large enough to not qualify as pebbles. This medieval concept must end. It is bad enough to still have laws that allow for people to be flogged, but this ‘law’ is about as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment as you can get. (Flogging should be dropped as well) Yet a great risk is run when attempting to get rid of it, or ignoring it. This is another demonstration of how Islam has yet to evolve with modern ideas of human thought and dignity. The elimination of stoning and flogging is being fought with violence. This is a moral issue that is similar to that of getting rid of slavery. It is almost impossible to stop violence without resorting to organized violence, particularly concerning issues like this. This is another case of Islamic law being a cause of war.
I mention this as a cause of war because of the violent resistance that is being seen when attempting to get rid of this ‘law’. Riots occurred in Nigeria in 2006 because the court refused to have a woman who was convicted of adultery stoned to death. Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 40% Christian. (10% ‘other’) This ‘law’ is an important one because similar problems have been seen in other parts of the world where attempts to ignore this same punishment have triggered responses similar to what Nigeria witnessed. I guess if you can’t throw rocks at someone, then it is OK to throw rocks at something else. After all, that aggressive urge has to be fulfilled somehow.
The Koran specifies that the rocks must be small enough not to kill with one blow and large enough to not qualify as pebbles. This medieval concept must end. It is bad enough to still have laws that allow for people to be flogged, but this ‘law’ is about as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment as you can get. (Flogging should be dropped as well) Yet a great risk is run when attempting to get rid of it, or ignoring it. This is another demonstration of how Islam has yet to evolve with modern ideas of human thought and dignity. The elimination of stoning and flogging is being fought with violence. This is a moral issue that is similar to that of getting rid of slavery. It is almost impossible to stop violence without resorting to organized violence, particularly concerning issues like this. This is another case of Islamic law being a cause of war.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Islam causes wars: Reason number 4
Jihad
Many Muslims believe that Jihad is an internal struggle. This is supposedly the ‘greater Jihad’. However, historically this has not been the case. "For most of the fourteen hundred years of Muslim history, Jihad has been most commonly interpreted as ARMED struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power." (B. Lewis)
This is enough time for a basic concept to actually become culturally based. Cultural change is the most difficult and turbulent of all change. Thus it would be very, very difficult to reverse.
The Koran mentions Jihad in the context of ‘internal’ struggle in about 5% to 10% of the references concerning Jihad. The other 90% concern armed Jihad and warfare. No wonder Jihad was (And is by many) most commonly interpreted as armed struggle. In addition, the reward for Jihad is booty in this world and paradise in the next. Booty was generally how armies were paid until the rise of the nation-state and professional armies. This did not occur until Islam had been established for more than 700 years. The concept of booty as it was generally known is inappropriate with the concept of Jihad as an internal struggle. Jihad may have been intended to be an internal struggle, but the reward system in this world makes it a foreign policy. This can and has caused wars.
Imams wield the power of a modern government. Jihad is one tool that gives Islamic leaders the powers of a nation-state. Jihad helps provide many Imams the ability to field their own personal militias. Another way of looking at it: If priests were able to form and lead armed combat units, many governments would have to go to war against the Catholic Church. As they should.
The waging of war is the responsibility of governments, not ‘religion’. Naturally, wars are fought over issues like this one. The Islamist ‘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 healthcare 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.
Many Muslims believe that Jihad is an internal struggle. This is supposedly the ‘greater Jihad’. However, historically this has not been the case. "For most of the fourteen hundred years of Muslim history, Jihad has been most commonly interpreted as ARMED struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power." (B. Lewis)
This is enough time for a basic concept to actually become culturally based. Cultural change is the most difficult and turbulent of all change. Thus it would be very, very difficult to reverse.
The Koran mentions Jihad in the context of ‘internal’ struggle in about 5% to 10% of the references concerning Jihad. The other 90% concern armed Jihad and warfare. No wonder Jihad was (And is by many) most commonly interpreted as armed struggle. In addition, the reward for Jihad is booty in this world and paradise in the next. Booty was generally how armies were paid until the rise of the nation-state and professional armies. This did not occur until Islam had been established for more than 700 years. The concept of booty as it was generally known is inappropriate with the concept of Jihad as an internal struggle. Jihad may have been intended to be an internal struggle, but the reward system in this world makes it a foreign policy. This can and has caused wars.
Imams wield the power of a modern government. Jihad is one tool that gives Islamic leaders the powers of a nation-state. Jihad helps provide many Imams the ability to field their own personal militias. Another way of looking at it: If priests were able to form and lead armed combat units, many governments would have to go to war against the Catholic Church. As they should.
The waging of war is the responsibility of governments, not ‘religion’. Naturally, wars are fought over issues like this one. The Islamist ‘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 healthcare 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.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Islam causes war: Reason number 3
The penalty for leaving Islam is death.
This ‘Law’ has been enforced for 1400 years. Part of the problem here is that the authority to execute people is supposed to be used only by a national government. Two ways that governments kill people: They execute their own citizens, or the government declares war and the professional army kills the enemy. Islam as a religion must not be allowed to retain this ability to terminate people’s lives. Islam implements the killing of others through the authority that Imams exercise. They can field their own militias. This is in conflict with the idea of governmental enforcement of the laws, not to mention government control of the armed forces. Even when governments enact this penalty for leaving Islam within the legal system, this reinforces the idea that once something is Muslim, it cannot revert back to anything else. This can be (And frequently is) applied to ‘waters’ and ‘occupation’ of land as well.
This concept goes well past national boundaries. As a result, this is an international issue that modern nations have and should go to war over. In addition, this law is a major structural problem for Islam.
The penalty for leaving Islam is death is one of the primary factors in the reasons why Sunni and Shiite have not been able to resolve their differences since 690 AD. (Islam was founded in 610 AD) Because the two sides differ in the line of succession of the leadership of Islam, (A major, fundamental difference) each side sees the other as having left Islam. In many of the cases where we hear of ‘sectarian’ violence, this is a major, basic cause. A number of other differences exist in the interpretation of the Koran. (It is human nature for people to differ) When any group interprets the law in any way significantly that is different from others, they see the other side as having left Islam. Either they must change their views, or else be executed. Naturally, the other side sees it the other way round.
Very few disagreements exists with the interpretation of ‘The penalty for leaving Islam is death.’ This cannot do anything but assist violent behavior. Historically, when ‘outsiders’ or infidels are involved, Sunni and Shiite will band together to defeat the common enemy before attempting to deal with the other, which is more of an internal problem.
Execution of people is the sole responsibility of a modern national government, not a ‘religion’. Once again, Islam is in direct conflict with modern governance. Imams wield the power of governments when they can implement this penalty, along with numerous other penalties that Islamic law requires. People and nations will fight violently to resolve these types of issues. It is about the only way to resolve them. Submission is the other. No wonder it results in violence, on both sides.
This ‘Law’ has been enforced for 1400 years. Part of the problem here is that the authority to execute people is supposed to be used only by a national government. Two ways that governments kill people: They execute their own citizens, or the government declares war and the professional army kills the enemy. Islam as a religion must not be allowed to retain this ability to terminate people’s lives. Islam implements the killing of others through the authority that Imams exercise. They can field their own militias. This is in conflict with the idea of governmental enforcement of the laws, not to mention government control of the armed forces. Even when governments enact this penalty for leaving Islam within the legal system, this reinforces the idea that once something is Muslim, it cannot revert back to anything else. This can be (And frequently is) applied to ‘waters’ and ‘occupation’ of land as well.
This concept goes well past national boundaries. As a result, this is an international issue that modern nations have and should go to war over. In addition, this law is a major structural problem for Islam.
The penalty for leaving Islam is death is one of the primary factors in the reasons why Sunni and Shiite have not been able to resolve their differences since 690 AD. (Islam was founded in 610 AD) Because the two sides differ in the line of succession of the leadership of Islam, (A major, fundamental difference) each side sees the other as having left Islam. In many of the cases where we hear of ‘sectarian’ violence, this is a major, basic cause. A number of other differences exist in the interpretation of the Koran. (It is human nature for people to differ) When any group interprets the law in any way significantly that is different from others, they see the other side as having left Islam. Either they must change their views, or else be executed. Naturally, the other side sees it the other way round.
Very few disagreements exists with the interpretation of ‘The penalty for leaving Islam is death.’ This cannot do anything but assist violent behavior. Historically, when ‘outsiders’ or infidels are involved, Sunni and Shiite will band together to defeat the common enemy before attempting to deal with the other, which is more of an internal problem.
Execution of people is the sole responsibility of a modern national government, not a ‘religion’. Once again, Islam is in direct conflict with modern governance. Imams wield the power of governments when they can implement this penalty, along with numerous other penalties that Islamic law requires. People and nations will fight violently to resolve these types of issues. It is about the only way to resolve them. Submission is the other. No wonder it results in violence, on both sides.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Islam causes war: Reason number 2
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 that 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 #2 in my list of reasons that Islam causes wars 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 one of the places where Islamic governance authority is in conflict with the authority of the nation-state. As a result, this issue has been a basic cause of war in the past and will continue to be so in the future.
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 that 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 #2 in my list of reasons that Islam causes wars 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 one of the places where Islamic governance authority is in conflict with the authority of the nation-state. As a result, this issue has been a basic cause of war in the past and will continue to be so in the future.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Islam causes wars. Reason # 1
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. 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 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. 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. 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 because it is considered to be ‘occupied’.
2) This would be comparable to Native Americans launching attacks upon the rest of the population because all of the land that the United States sits on is actually ‘occupied’.
The Islamic law "Kill the occupiers of Muslim land" is only the first of the major issues present with Islam that causes open warfare.
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. 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 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. 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. 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 because it is considered to be ‘occupied’.
2) This would be comparable to Native Americans launching attacks upon the rest of the population because all of the land that the United States sits on is actually ‘occupied’.
The Islamic law "Kill the occupiers of Muslim land" is only the first of the major issues present with Islam that causes open warfare.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
They will back the stronger horse
Remember what Osama said? And if a mosque is built near ground zero, I just can’t see Muslims as seeing this powerful symbol as a defeat of Islam. I see quite the contrary. This can only be a major setback for the U.S. and indeed, the entire western civilization.
Islam will be seen by many as being the much stronger horse. Many Muslims see the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as having been defeated, simply by the U.S. leaving. On top of this, building the mosque near the site of the attack that sparked the invasions can easily be interpreted as a victory for the "Nation of Islam". After all, in a nationalistic view of Islam, the mosque will be an embassy. And built upon or near the site of Islam’s greatest modern victory? A monument, celebrating Islamic supremacy. I can see how many ‘moderate’ Muslims world-wide will interpret Islam as being the ‘stronger horse’.
Islam will be seen by many as being the much stronger horse. Many Muslims see the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as having been defeated, simply by the U.S. leaving. On top of this, building the mosque near the site of the attack that sparked the invasions can easily be interpreted as a victory for the "Nation of Islam". After all, in a nationalistic view of Islam, the mosque will be an embassy. And built upon or near the site of Islam’s greatest modern victory? A monument, celebrating Islamic supremacy. I can see how many ‘moderate’ Muslims world-wide will interpret Islam as being the ‘stronger horse’.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Jaundiced perspective
This was a comment on a blog that I found interesting.
"Jimmy: Your jaundiced perspective on Islam illustrates the dangers of relying on inflammatory negative sources like Craig Winn for information about something as difficult as religion."
I had never heard of Craig Winn. I looked him up and found that he researched Islam and has self-published a number of books on-line. From the little that I have seen, he is as anti Islam as I have seen anywhere else. This does not concern me as much as this comment assumption that Islam is a religion, as we know them in the United States.
A great deal of confusion seems to exist here. We in the United States tend to assume that religion is not able to enforce it’s own rules and laws. This is because all of the religions that we know have long since gotten out of the government business. Islam and Islamic law is an extreme exception. Maybe some people just don’t want to change their views. (An easy enough habit to fall into) Maybe some are afraid. (As they should be) A certain amount of people will notice that it is to their political advantage. And we all know that religions are peaceful and submissive to government control. I accepted President Bush’s comment as true when he said that Islam is a peaceful religion. A really good thing that I went ahead and studied Islam anyway. I did find that a certain part of Islam is peaceful.
I don’t have a problem with the religious side of Islam. If they need to fast every day for a month, that is their problem. If Muslims need to pray 5 times a day, that is their lookout. If they need to eat certain types of food, go ahead. (As long as it is not cruel to animals) This is religion, as we know it. My problem is with Islamic law.
Islamic law has been and is being enforced in many parts of the world today. This law is hostile to just about everything that I stand for as an American. Another way of looking at it: The Pope can’t enforce the Catholic Church’s prohibition on abortion. Islamic law has people stoned to death. And this is only the beginning.
Want to start a war? Give priests the authority to field and lead militias. This was how armies were fielded back before the rise of the modern nation-state. Islam is still doing it. The authority for this originates in the Koran. Islam was designed as a government, complete with a legal system, a foreign policy and an economic policy. It fields it’s own armies and defends it’s ‘occupied’ land and wages war to protect it’s ‘waters’.
I use the example of a Catholic Church in Chicago. If armed people take it over; the responsibility for handing this is the United States government. (Or some branch, like the city or state. This can take the form of police or National Guard) Catholics do not build an armed organization to throw them out. Catholics do not negotiate with a foreign government to obtain armed help in throwing out the ‘occupiers’ of their ‘land’. Islam is actually able to mobilize its own forces. These armed Islamic organizations are able to negotiate with foreign governments and obtain armed support. This qualifies as acts of war against the parent government. The idea that the "Nation of Islam" can act as a government does not have any similarity with religion as we in the United States think of religion.
The idea of Muslim ‘waters’ is alive and well. One sample of proof is that statement in 2008 by the imams in Istanbul that spoke of the Israeli blockade as being illegal because it is operating in Muslim ‘waters’. They spoke of the "Nation of Islam" as a government.
Remember the Barbary pirates? The Mediterranean was considered to be "Muslim waters". Our ships were passing through and we owed them money. This was an extension of the concept of Islamic Tribute.
Tribute is payment of a ‘poll tax’ by non-Muslims to Muslim authorities in order to live in Islamic controlled land. This payment exempts them from military service. Taxation and conscription are two functions of a modern government.These are only some of the issues that I have found that will cause open warfare. The U.S. Civil War was fought to eliminate slavery. (And to defend slavery) All it takes is one good issue to cause a war like the U.S. Civil War. I have identified 7 issues of this type concerning Islamic governance. No wonder wars are all over the world where Islam is attempting to establish its legal system. Islam is in direct conflict with the concept, responsibilities and authority of the modern government.
This is not religion, as I understand religion. This is not a "Jaundiced" point of view. It is human nature.
"Jimmy: Your jaundiced perspective on Islam illustrates the dangers of relying on inflammatory negative sources like Craig Winn for information about something as difficult as religion."
I had never heard of Craig Winn. I looked him up and found that he researched Islam and has self-published a number of books on-line. From the little that I have seen, he is as anti Islam as I have seen anywhere else. This does not concern me as much as this comment assumption that Islam is a religion, as we know them in the United States.
A great deal of confusion seems to exist here. We in the United States tend to assume that religion is not able to enforce it’s own rules and laws. This is because all of the religions that we know have long since gotten out of the government business. Islam and Islamic law is an extreme exception. Maybe some people just don’t want to change their views. (An easy enough habit to fall into) Maybe some are afraid. (As they should be) A certain amount of people will notice that it is to their political advantage. And we all know that religions are peaceful and submissive to government control. I accepted President Bush’s comment as true when he said that Islam is a peaceful religion. A really good thing that I went ahead and studied Islam anyway. I did find that a certain part of Islam is peaceful.
I don’t have a problem with the religious side of Islam. If they need to fast every day for a month, that is their problem. If Muslims need to pray 5 times a day, that is their lookout. If they need to eat certain types of food, go ahead. (As long as it is not cruel to animals) This is religion, as we know it. My problem is with Islamic law.
Islamic law has been and is being enforced in many parts of the world today. This law is hostile to just about everything that I stand for as an American. Another way of looking at it: The Pope can’t enforce the Catholic Church’s prohibition on abortion. Islamic law has people stoned to death. And this is only the beginning.
Want to start a war? Give priests the authority to field and lead militias. This was how armies were fielded back before the rise of the modern nation-state. Islam is still doing it. The authority for this originates in the Koran. Islam was designed as a government, complete with a legal system, a foreign policy and an economic policy. It fields it’s own armies and defends it’s ‘occupied’ land and wages war to protect it’s ‘waters’.
I use the example of a Catholic Church in Chicago. If armed people take it over; the responsibility for handing this is the United States government. (Or some branch, like the city or state. This can take the form of police or National Guard) Catholics do not build an armed organization to throw them out. Catholics do not negotiate with a foreign government to obtain armed help in throwing out the ‘occupiers’ of their ‘land’. Islam is actually able to mobilize its own forces. These armed Islamic organizations are able to negotiate with foreign governments and obtain armed support. This qualifies as acts of war against the parent government. The idea that the "Nation of Islam" can act as a government does not have any similarity with religion as we in the United States think of religion.
The idea of Muslim ‘waters’ is alive and well. One sample of proof is that statement in 2008 by the imams in Istanbul that spoke of the Israeli blockade as being illegal because it is operating in Muslim ‘waters’. They spoke of the "Nation of Islam" as a government.
Remember the Barbary pirates? The Mediterranean was considered to be "Muslim waters". Our ships were passing through and we owed them money. This was an extension of the concept of Islamic Tribute.
Tribute is payment of a ‘poll tax’ by non-Muslims to Muslim authorities in order to live in Islamic controlled land. This payment exempts them from military service. Taxation and conscription are two functions of a modern government.These are only some of the issues that I have found that will cause open warfare. The U.S. Civil War was fought to eliminate slavery. (And to defend slavery) All it takes is one good issue to cause a war like the U.S. Civil War. I have identified 7 issues of this type concerning Islamic governance. No wonder wars are all over the world where Islam is attempting to establish its legal system. Islam is in direct conflict with the concept, responsibilities and authority of the modern government.
This is not religion, as I understand religion. This is not a "Jaundiced" point of view. It is human nature.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Can pig remains become a weapon?
A number of religions prohibit eating pork. Even today, pig products are less healthy to consume compared to other meats. Long before modern technology devised safer and healthier preservation methods, pigs were actually dangerous to preserve and/or consume. What makes this subject a possible weapon against political Islam is that all other religions have surrendered authority to the modern nation-state.
Islamic law is involved in a violent confrontation with modern governments. Many Islamic laws are actually incorporated into government legal systems, complete with Islamic restrictions upon how food is prepared. Exceptions to Islamic law are plentiful. For example, arguments arise about how medicine can contain alcohol and can or cannot then be consumed by Muslims. However, religions in general have gotten out of the enforcement business.
Once again, Islam has not. Islamic law is alive and well in many places throughout the world. In any case, it is apparent that many Muslims worldwide have a sensitivity to the subject of pig remains and products. Many will not allow themselves to come into contact and will actually go out of their way to avoid. This may be useful in the war against Islamic governance.
I have heard that if pig remains were buried on a plot of land, that ground would not be suitable to build a mosque. If true, this would be an obvious way to prevent the building of the so-call ground zero mosque. In addition, this could be useful in a number of other ways.
I have read that Israel has made public that pig lard has been placed in public busses. I remember how popular it was to blow up Israeli busses years ago, and have since noted that this has dropped off severely. Maybe the pig lard is just BS, but if the Muslim world is so sensitive to pigs and pig remains, I am certain that many imaginative ways of using it for defense can be implemented. Any major target could have a token amount placed in key places. This may seem ridiculous, but if the war becomes anything like the siege that has and is taking place in Israel, the ridiculous idea just may become an important tactic in the war.
Islamic law is involved in a violent confrontation with modern governments. Many Islamic laws are actually incorporated into government legal systems, complete with Islamic restrictions upon how food is prepared. Exceptions to Islamic law are plentiful. For example, arguments arise about how medicine can contain alcohol and can or cannot then be consumed by Muslims. However, religions in general have gotten out of the enforcement business.
Once again, Islam has not. Islamic law is alive and well in many places throughout the world. In any case, it is apparent that many Muslims worldwide have a sensitivity to the subject of pig remains and products. Many will not allow themselves to come into contact and will actually go out of their way to avoid. This may be useful in the war against Islamic governance.
I have heard that if pig remains were buried on a plot of land, that ground would not be suitable to build a mosque. If true, this would be an obvious way to prevent the building of the so-call ground zero mosque. In addition, this could be useful in a number of other ways.
I have read that Israel has made public that pig lard has been placed in public busses. I remember how popular it was to blow up Israeli busses years ago, and have since noted that this has dropped off severely. Maybe the pig lard is just BS, but if the Muslim world is so sensitive to pigs and pig remains, I am certain that many imaginative ways of using it for defense can be implemented. Any major target could have a token amount placed in key places. This may seem ridiculous, but if the war becomes anything like the siege that has and is taking place in Israel, the ridiculous idea just may become an important tactic in the war.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Excellent discussion of the threat we face today
This is one of the best descriptions that I have found that discuss the threats that we in the United States (indeed, the entire world) face from Islamic legal doctrine.
Please go to the following web site http://www.resistnet.com/
Search for the article:
SHARIA REPORT CHALLENGES POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT
This is a summary and contains a link to the actual report.
Please go to the following web site http://www.resistnet.com/
Search for the article:
SHARIA REPORT CHALLENGES POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT
This is a summary and contains a link to the actual report.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The war is comming to us
I pulled this from the web site "Jihad watch" (9/17/10)
A U.S. cartoonist who proposed an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" last spring went into a hiding after receiving threats from Islamic extremists, U.S. media reported. Molly Norris, from Seattle, went into hiding and changed her name and her identity with the help of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).Ms Norris was "moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity," the Seattle Weekly reported. "She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program," it said. The New York Times reported that Mark D. Fefer, Seattle Weekly’s editor, declined an interview request to report on Norris’ current status citing "the sensitivity of the situation."
The Seattle Weekly, which ran Norris’ comics, said yesterday that "on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity." Norris is not responding to emails and has her personal web site taken off line.
End quotes.
The only thing worse than winning a war is losing one. Defensive warfare sucks! We are losing the war. It is only a matter of time before we begin to see a significant increase in violence within our own country.
A U.S. cartoonist who proposed an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" last spring went into a hiding after receiving threats from Islamic extremists, U.S. media reported. Molly Norris, from Seattle, went into hiding and changed her name and her identity with the help of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).Ms Norris was "moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity," the Seattle Weekly reported. "She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program," it said. The New York Times reported that Mark D. Fefer, Seattle Weekly’s editor, declined an interview request to report on Norris’ current status citing "the sensitivity of the situation."
The Seattle Weekly, which ran Norris’ comics, said yesterday that "on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity." Norris is not responding to emails and has her personal web site taken off line.
End quotes.
The only thing worse than winning a war is losing one. Defensive warfare sucks! We are losing the war. It is only a matter of time before we begin to see a significant increase in violence within our own country.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Islam is able to enforce its beliefs
In comparing religious beliefs, I have found that Christianity and Islam prohibit Alcohol, pork, the payment of interest on loans, and idol worship. Both religions prohibit other ideas as well. I am using these as some of the more visible ones. The comparison of Islam and Christianity is much too large for one post, but I will hit upon what I consider to be a few of the more important contrasts.
The main problem with Islam is that the authority of the modern government (Nation-state) overrides these prohibitions. With Christianity, if the government allows its population to drink booze, or to take out loans that pay interest, or eat pork, the church has no say. This is not the case with Islam. Just look at the organized resistance to these concepts within countries that allow these practices with a Muslim minority.
The point I am attempting to make here is that Islam the ‘religion’ is still able to enforce these religious rules. With Christianity, the enforcement mechanism has long been discarded. Take the Catholic Church’s prohibition on abortion. Some crazies may bomb an abortion clinic. But no governments enforce abortion upon others that are under the jurisdiction of another government. Any type of move like this would trigger open warfare. Because Islam is seen as being a ‘religion’, it is being treated differently by many of the governments of the world.
Christianity got out of the government business centuries ago. Many governments are based upon many of its ideas. However, a key difference is that Islam was set up as a government. Islam has a complete legal system with many of the functions of a modern government. Example: All non-Muslims must pay a ‘poll tax’. This payment exempts the payer from military service. Taxation and conscription are functions of a modern government.
Fine, your government passes a law that allows for this. How about the penalty for leaving Islam is death? Lots of death penalties in Islamic law. OK, many Islamic governments refuse to enforce all of the rules; yet riots will occur from time to time when important Islamic laws are ignored. This is a common occurrence throughout the world where Islam is a majority, or Islam is a significant minority. How many riots do we see in the world because of Christian law being ignored? Once again, I will use the example of abortion. A few crazies take action, but open riots? And look at how important an issue abortion is. Compare this with the riots that are occurring with regularity within the Islamic community. Over supposed ‘insults’. Anger is openly and commonly expressed in the Islamic world. Then we have the ‘eye for an eye’ concept.
Just last week, an Egyptian court was looking for a doctor to sever a man’s spine. This is because in a fight, he had paralyzed another man. Islamic law allows for a person to seek justice in this way. It is literally, a spine for a spine. In Iran last year, a woman asked the court to blind a man with acid because he had blinded her by throwing acid in her face. Christianity has never taught ‘an eye for an eye’. In contrast, Islam has this principle imbedded into its legal system.
Islam was set up as a government. Its autocratic system can enforce the many personal restrictions that the ideology embraces. Likewise, Christianity was set up as a set of rules for personal behavior. However, the enforcement mechanism in Islam is not present in Christianity. Many times in the past, enforcement of the Christian rules was common, but the enforcement mechanism was inferred, not spelled out. As a result, Christianity was able to drop enforcement of its rules centuries ago. (This required warfare to accomplish)
This is because Christianity evolved to the point where Christian rules do NOT override the government. This is a problem with Islam because Islam was designed to be a government by itself. Islamic ‘laws’ are VERY strict. The system of governance is VERY autocratic, as it must be to enforce such draconian measures. In addition, these strict rules that Islam places upon its followers must be a source of frustration for its members. Hence, the touchiness to any attack (imagined or real) and the sensitivity to insult. These emotions along with anger are natural, human byproducts of frustration. Then we have other issues.
One of them is stoning people to death. Christianity has always been against this practice. (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone) Riots have occurred because this Islamic penalty was not enforced. This practice is also embedded into Islamic law. Stoning people to death is barbaric. It must be eliminated. Eliminating stoning within Islam has been shown to result in violence. People fought open warfare to prevent the elimination of slavery. Stoning is an issue that appears to be similar in this way. The very culture was at stake with slavery. I am guessing that elimination of stoning is being violently resisted for similar reasons.
Speaking of violence, when was the last time the Pope led an army? When did Christianity last field an army? (One that was outside of a nation state’s control?) The Crusades were the last time that I know of and that was more than ½ a millennia ago. These Islamic terrorist groups are literally the army of Islam. Imams are frequently the leaders of their own ‘militias’. They have their own armies! They obtain the authority to do so from the concept of Islam as a government. Want to start a war? This will do it EVERY time. A ‘fundamental’ difference between Christianity and Islam indeed.
The main problem with Islam is that the authority of the modern government (Nation-state) overrides these prohibitions. With Christianity, if the government allows its population to drink booze, or to take out loans that pay interest, or eat pork, the church has no say. This is not the case with Islam. Just look at the organized resistance to these concepts within countries that allow these practices with a Muslim minority.
The point I am attempting to make here is that Islam the ‘religion’ is still able to enforce these religious rules. With Christianity, the enforcement mechanism has long been discarded. Take the Catholic Church’s prohibition on abortion. Some crazies may bomb an abortion clinic. But no governments enforce abortion upon others that are under the jurisdiction of another government. Any type of move like this would trigger open warfare. Because Islam is seen as being a ‘religion’, it is being treated differently by many of the governments of the world.
Christianity got out of the government business centuries ago. Many governments are based upon many of its ideas. However, a key difference is that Islam was set up as a government. Islam has a complete legal system with many of the functions of a modern government. Example: All non-Muslims must pay a ‘poll tax’. This payment exempts the payer from military service. Taxation and conscription are functions of a modern government.
Fine, your government passes a law that allows for this. How about the penalty for leaving Islam is death? Lots of death penalties in Islamic law. OK, many Islamic governments refuse to enforce all of the rules; yet riots will occur from time to time when important Islamic laws are ignored. This is a common occurrence throughout the world where Islam is a majority, or Islam is a significant minority. How many riots do we see in the world because of Christian law being ignored? Once again, I will use the example of abortion. A few crazies take action, but open riots? And look at how important an issue abortion is. Compare this with the riots that are occurring with regularity within the Islamic community. Over supposed ‘insults’. Anger is openly and commonly expressed in the Islamic world. Then we have the ‘eye for an eye’ concept.
Just last week, an Egyptian court was looking for a doctor to sever a man’s spine. This is because in a fight, he had paralyzed another man. Islamic law allows for a person to seek justice in this way. It is literally, a spine for a spine. In Iran last year, a woman asked the court to blind a man with acid because he had blinded her by throwing acid in her face. Christianity has never taught ‘an eye for an eye’. In contrast, Islam has this principle imbedded into its legal system.
Islam was set up as a government. Its autocratic system can enforce the many personal restrictions that the ideology embraces. Likewise, Christianity was set up as a set of rules for personal behavior. However, the enforcement mechanism in Islam is not present in Christianity. Many times in the past, enforcement of the Christian rules was common, but the enforcement mechanism was inferred, not spelled out. As a result, Christianity was able to drop enforcement of its rules centuries ago. (This required warfare to accomplish)
This is because Christianity evolved to the point where Christian rules do NOT override the government. This is a problem with Islam because Islam was designed to be a government by itself. Islamic ‘laws’ are VERY strict. The system of governance is VERY autocratic, as it must be to enforce such draconian measures. In addition, these strict rules that Islam places upon its followers must be a source of frustration for its members. Hence, the touchiness to any attack (imagined or real) and the sensitivity to insult. These emotions along with anger are natural, human byproducts of frustration. Then we have other issues.
One of them is stoning people to death. Christianity has always been against this practice. (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone) Riots have occurred because this Islamic penalty was not enforced. This practice is also embedded into Islamic law. Stoning people to death is barbaric. It must be eliminated. Eliminating stoning within Islam has been shown to result in violence. People fought open warfare to prevent the elimination of slavery. Stoning is an issue that appears to be similar in this way. The very culture was at stake with slavery. I am guessing that elimination of stoning is being violently resisted for similar reasons.
Speaking of violence, when was the last time the Pope led an army? When did Christianity last field an army? (One that was outside of a nation state’s control?) The Crusades were the last time that I know of and that was more than ½ a millennia ago. These Islamic terrorist groups are literally the army of Islam. Imams are frequently the leaders of their own ‘militias’. They have their own armies! They obtain the authority to do so from the concept of Islam as a government. Want to start a war? This will do it EVERY time. A ‘fundamental’ difference between Christianity and Islam indeed.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Koran burning
This is a comment I had made on the blog "Strata-Sphere.com. It captures my feelings on this subject well.
I agree in that these guys should not burn the Koran. However, we all seem to agree that they have the right to. Kind of like building the Mosque at ground zero.
What I find interesting is the potential reaction to a burning of the Koran. Have a burn the Bible day in some Muslim country. Would we see the same reaction, as we will if these guys go ahead with burning the Koran? Vocal protest only? I think not for at least one important reason.
Maybe this is just me, but I believe that each Koran is actually considered something to be physically defended, like land. ‘Occupied’ Muslim land has historically been physically defended and is constantly being brought up. Defending each Mosque appears to be similar. Note the sensitivity to violation of a Mosque? I wonder what would happen if the ground zero mosque was built and subsequently ‘occupied’ by our police or military because of some major crisis.
Remember how simply the idea of flushing a Koran down the toilet ‘insulted’ so many Muslims? Islam is seen as a form of governance. It was designed with the power and authority of a modern nation-state. This concept is alive and well today. The burning of a Koran is even more delicate than burning the Constitution, because the Koran combines the Bible and the US Constitution in ideology. This is another root cause of the violence and warfare that is so common throughout the Islamic world.
I agree in that these guys should not burn the Koran. However, we all seem to agree that they have the right to. Kind of like building the Mosque at ground zero.
What I find interesting is the potential reaction to a burning of the Koran. Have a burn the Bible day in some Muslim country. Would we see the same reaction, as we will if these guys go ahead with burning the Koran? Vocal protest only? I think not for at least one important reason.
Maybe this is just me, but I believe that each Koran is actually considered something to be physically defended, like land. ‘Occupied’ Muslim land has historically been physically defended and is constantly being brought up. Defending each Mosque appears to be similar. Note the sensitivity to violation of a Mosque? I wonder what would happen if the ground zero mosque was built and subsequently ‘occupied’ by our police or military because of some major crisis.
Remember how simply the idea of flushing a Koran down the toilet ‘insulted’ so many Muslims? Islam is seen as a form of governance. It was designed with the power and authority of a modern nation-state. This concept is alive and well today. The burning of a Koran is even more delicate than burning the Constitution, because the Koran combines the Bible and the US Constitution in ideology. This is another root cause of the violence and warfare that is so common throughout the Islamic world.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Islam is a one-way street
1) The penalty for leaving Islam is death. No conversion to any other religion is allowed. Once you are Muslim, you can’t leave. Death is a one-way street.
2) "For Islamists, democracy, expressing the will of the people, is the road to power, but it is a one-way road, on which there is no return, no rejection of the sovereignty of God, as exercised through His chosen representatives. Their electoral policy has been classically summarized as "One man (Men only) One vote, once."" (B. Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, P111, C2003.)
This is why I am keeping a close eye on what is going on in Gaza. Hamas was elected, but it remains to be seen if they ever give up power. Islam does not share power well. Islamic governments have constant problems keeping Islamic ‘nationalism’ under control.
3) Land that was at any time Muslim controlled is always considered to be Muslim. If any other entity subsequently controls it, the land is considered to be ‘occupied’ land. In other words, in the eyes of Islam, all of Israel is ‘occupied’ land. This explains why we see so much resistance to acceptance of Israel in general.
4) Islamic law is a very autocratic system of governance. Discrimination goes hand in hand with any autocratic system. Discrimination is by definition a one sided view. Islamic law excels at this.
Generally, intolerance of just about anything that is not Islamic is the order of the day.
5) If your father was Muslim, in the eyes of Islam, that automatically makes you Muslim. If you chose another path, you are an Apostate. The penalty is death.
Intolerance is similar to discrimination, so I am not listing this separately. I would like to point out how the Muslim world is so sensitive to insult. It makes sense that on a cultural level, sensitivity to insult would result. Anger, frustration from all of the restrictions placed upon each member. Brutality, even when not enforced is always hanging over everyone. Extremely autocratic systems tend to be irritable and touchy. (Example: North Korea). Islam is no exception. The difference here is that Islam controls no government completely. When Islam is the basic law of the land, it is openly hostile to just about everything. (Example: Afghanistan under the Taliban. Iran is smarter about it. Iran uses other organizations to launch their attacks.)
With any general rule, you can find exceptions. One of the biggest arguments against fighting Islam openly is that it is not monolithic. Naturally, where Islam is a distinct minority, tolerance is forced upon them. Many will adapt to the environment, but many will not. As a rule, Islam tends to be VERY resistant to assimilation. Generally, extreme ideology would find everything else to be unacceptable, and in many ways, repulsive. Naturally, it would lash out from time to time.
True, Islam has various levels of implementation within the governments that have majority Muslim populations. These governments tend to be autocratic. One reason may be simply because it takes an autocratic system to keep Islamic ideology under control. Modern life has passed by many of the concepts within Islam, particularly its legal system, its foreign policy and its economic system. This helps explain why so few governments embrace Islam more completely. Being so hostile like the Tailban would encourage other government to eliminate the offender. I would hope that evolution would eliminate most of the objectionable parts of Islam, but this is far from being the case. Islam is still fielding an army, something that all other religions have dropped centuries ago. One way mentality does not change quickly, if at all. Islam is no exception.
2) "For Islamists, democracy, expressing the will of the people, is the road to power, but it is a one-way road, on which there is no return, no rejection of the sovereignty of God, as exercised through His chosen representatives. Their electoral policy has been classically summarized as "One man (Men only) One vote, once."" (B. Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, P111, C2003.)
This is why I am keeping a close eye on what is going on in Gaza. Hamas was elected, but it remains to be seen if they ever give up power. Islam does not share power well. Islamic governments have constant problems keeping Islamic ‘nationalism’ under control.
3) Land that was at any time Muslim controlled is always considered to be Muslim. If any other entity subsequently controls it, the land is considered to be ‘occupied’ land. In other words, in the eyes of Islam, all of Israel is ‘occupied’ land. This explains why we see so much resistance to acceptance of Israel in general.
4) Islamic law is a very autocratic system of governance. Discrimination goes hand in hand with any autocratic system. Discrimination is by definition a one sided view. Islamic law excels at this.
Generally, intolerance of just about anything that is not Islamic is the order of the day.
5) If your father was Muslim, in the eyes of Islam, that automatically makes you Muslim. If you chose another path, you are an Apostate. The penalty is death.
Intolerance is similar to discrimination, so I am not listing this separately. I would like to point out how the Muslim world is so sensitive to insult. It makes sense that on a cultural level, sensitivity to insult would result. Anger, frustration from all of the restrictions placed upon each member. Brutality, even when not enforced is always hanging over everyone. Extremely autocratic systems tend to be irritable and touchy. (Example: North Korea). Islam is no exception. The difference here is that Islam controls no government completely. When Islam is the basic law of the land, it is openly hostile to just about everything. (Example: Afghanistan under the Taliban. Iran is smarter about it. Iran uses other organizations to launch their attacks.)
With any general rule, you can find exceptions. One of the biggest arguments against fighting Islam openly is that it is not monolithic. Naturally, where Islam is a distinct minority, tolerance is forced upon them. Many will adapt to the environment, but many will not. As a rule, Islam tends to be VERY resistant to assimilation. Generally, extreme ideology would find everything else to be unacceptable, and in many ways, repulsive. Naturally, it would lash out from time to time.
True, Islam has various levels of implementation within the governments that have majority Muslim populations. These governments tend to be autocratic. One reason may be simply because it takes an autocratic system to keep Islamic ideology under control. Modern life has passed by many of the concepts within Islam, particularly its legal system, its foreign policy and its economic system. This helps explain why so few governments embrace Islam more completely. Being so hostile like the Tailban would encourage other government to eliminate the offender. I would hope that evolution would eliminate most of the objectionable parts of Islam, but this is far from being the case. Islam is still fielding an army, something that all other religions have dropped centuries ago. One way mentality does not change quickly, if at all. Islam is no exception.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Islam's army
The crusades are an excellent example of religion fielding an army. This was not uncommon prior to the rise of the nation-state and the professional army. Armies were fielded, as the situation demanded. No real standing armies existed, except perhaps the Roman army. Even in the Roman army, much of the time the men were dong domestic work and not drilling as organized units. Very few of the economies of the world could afford to support professional, standing armies, as we know them today.
Islam is the only religion that I know of that is still fielding an army. Similar to armies of the ancient past, these terrorist organizations field irregular combat units. Although they do receive training and use modern weapons, they are not the professional units as those fielded by governments throughout the world. Many of these terrorist groups spring up as the situation presents itself and enough men in a certain location band together. They resemble the rank and file of irregular units that have sprung up spontaneously rather than a professional force. This was how the crusader armies were formed.
I find it interesting that the Muslim world is so sensitive to the entire concept of the crusades and in particular the term crusade. After all, this is what the Islamic army is. Armed Jihad is a religious crusade as history has documented during the Middle Ages. Even the brutality is present, complete with beheadings and execution of prisoners. So many of the vile concepts of Islam are from the distant past: Stoning to death, treatment of women in general, treatment of the enemy, eye for an eye. In Egypt this week, a court is seeking a doctor to sever a man’s spinal cord because he crippled another man in a fight. Islamic law allows him to seek justice by injury of the same type to the perpetrator.
The overall point is that the army of Islam is an army of a bygone age. It makes sense that its members behave as if they are still in the 7th century. Changing this ideology will not be willingly undertaken. It will not be voluntary change. This ideology has survived to the present day despite the rest of the world evolving well past it. This is despite centuries of interaction with the outside world. Resistance to change is so strong that only violence will be able to overcome it. Such as the resistance to getting rid of slavery. People will fight with organized violence to prevent change of this magnitude. One major problem is that change MUST be forced, TODAY.
This Islamic ‘army’ has the potential to obtain nuclear weapons. This war is going to go nuclear. It is only a matter of time. The ‘army of death’ has the potential to create more death than has ever occurred in war before. Death was very close and common throughout the medieval world. Medicine was so primitive that people died of many things, not to mention being killed. Life was relatively cheap. Medieval ideology can easily grasp the concept of death. This type of thinking can grasp the concept of the power of the nuclear weapon. The concept of the punitive war* also fits with this thinking. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate punitive weapon. They kill and destroy everything indiscriminately. The Islamic army will be unable to restrain from wielding it.
*Note: Punitive war is one in which you wipe everything out. Destroy everything of any value and kill everything that is alive. Most wars are wars of conquest. True punitive wars are relatively rare, although they were more common prior to the rise of the modern nation-state.
Islam is the only religion that I know of that is still fielding an army. Similar to armies of the ancient past, these terrorist organizations field irregular combat units. Although they do receive training and use modern weapons, they are not the professional units as those fielded by governments throughout the world. Many of these terrorist groups spring up as the situation presents itself and enough men in a certain location band together. They resemble the rank and file of irregular units that have sprung up spontaneously rather than a professional force. This was how the crusader armies were formed.
I find it interesting that the Muslim world is so sensitive to the entire concept of the crusades and in particular the term crusade. After all, this is what the Islamic army is. Armed Jihad is a religious crusade as history has documented during the Middle Ages. Even the brutality is present, complete with beheadings and execution of prisoners. So many of the vile concepts of Islam are from the distant past: Stoning to death, treatment of women in general, treatment of the enemy, eye for an eye. In Egypt this week, a court is seeking a doctor to sever a man’s spinal cord because he crippled another man in a fight. Islamic law allows him to seek justice by injury of the same type to the perpetrator.
The overall point is that the army of Islam is an army of a bygone age. It makes sense that its members behave as if they are still in the 7th century. Changing this ideology will not be willingly undertaken. It will not be voluntary change. This ideology has survived to the present day despite the rest of the world evolving well past it. This is despite centuries of interaction with the outside world. Resistance to change is so strong that only violence will be able to overcome it. Such as the resistance to getting rid of slavery. People will fight with organized violence to prevent change of this magnitude. One major problem is that change MUST be forced, TODAY.
This Islamic ‘army’ has the potential to obtain nuclear weapons. This war is going to go nuclear. It is only a matter of time. The ‘army of death’ has the potential to create more death than has ever occurred in war before. Death was very close and common throughout the medieval world. Medicine was so primitive that people died of many things, not to mention being killed. Life was relatively cheap. Medieval ideology can easily grasp the concept of death. This type of thinking can grasp the concept of the power of the nuclear weapon. The concept of the punitive war* also fits with this thinking. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate punitive weapon. They kill and destroy everything indiscriminately. The Islamic army will be unable to restrain from wielding it.
*Note: Punitive war is one in which you wipe everything out. Destroy everything of any value and kill everything that is alive. Most wars are wars of conquest. True punitive wars are relatively rare, although they were more common prior to the rise of the modern nation-state.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Islamic nationalism is the root cause of violence and warfare
The "Nation of Islam" is the root cause of war. The very fact that a ‘religion’ can contest ‘waters’ or ‘land’ is a root cause of war. For example: The Catholic Church does not defend ANY land nor water ANYWHERE in the world. No such thing exists as ‘occupied Catholic land’. Nor does any ‘Catholic waters’ or ‘Christian waters or land’ exist. Governments have professional armies and navies to defend the areas where they are responsible. This is a very important part of the reason why Israel is considered by many Muslims to be sitting on ‘occupied’ land. The blockade that Israel has implemented is considered to be a violation of ‘Muslim waters’. Historically, wars are fought over issues such as these. Another place where Islam contests the modern governments’ authority is in taxation and conscription.
Modern governments do not tax Muslims for living in their area of authority. Any payment made by Muslims cannot exempt them from military service. Taxation and conscription are functions of the modern national government. NO ‘religion’ should be able to wield this authority. Another area where Islam is in conflict is enforcement of its laws.
The Catholic Church cannot enforce its prohibition on abortion. (I am personally against abortion, but this is beside the point) Islamic law is the mechanism for the enforcement of ‘religious’ law. Another issue of this type is the penalty for leaving Islam is death. Actually, this is one of the fundamental flaws in Islam. This is one of the primary reasons why Sunni and Shiite have been unable to reconcile their differences. NO religion should have the ability to enforce this ‘law’, nor should any followers be allowed to get away with killing those who seek an alternative religious belief. Yet this is still an important ‘law’ within the Islamic world.
I cannot see why anyone would need to discuss the subject of beating your wife. Yet the Islamic world has a large disagreement on this issue. Apparently, many within the Islamic world interpret a phase in the Koran as allowing men to physically strike their wives. Far more agreement exists with the concept that a man may take his wife against her will. Makes sense that if you could rape your wife, (We in the West define rape as sex without the woman’s consent) that you would be allowed to ‘soften’ her up first.
No person is to be stoned to death. The Koran specifies that the rocks can’t be large enough to kill with one blow, yet not qualify to be a pebble. This type of penalty has to go the way of the guillotine.
To top all of this off (And I have left out plenty of repulsive issues) NO ‘religion’ should be able to field an armed force to enforce its laws. These terrorist groups have one thing in common. They seek to implement Islamic law. These terrorist groups are literally the army of Islam. Jihad - Historically, the most common interpretation has been ARMED struggle for the advancement and defense of Muslim POWER. Want to start a war? Let’s have religion field armies like they did back in the Middle Ages.
In the 40 years of my study of warfare, I cannot think of ANY armed conflict where I was able to identify a list of reasons for the cause of the violence in anything like the numbers presented here. Please note that this list is NOT complete. I would also like to point out that ‘extremists’ within the Islamic world are NOT the only Muslims who believe in these concepts. A sizeable minority if not a majority of Muslims worldwide believes in at least some of these concepts. All it takes is one or two good issues to cause a war. (Example: The US Civil War issues were slavery and states rights) Islam contains far more that its fair share.
I consider the vast majority of Muslims to be ‘good’ people. A basic problem here is that like the good southerners who defended the evil of slavery and the way of life that revolved around that ‘peculiar’ institution, the ‘good’ Muslims will also defend these concepts with their lives. And like the good southerners, they will not change their beliefs without open warfare. Like the war to end slavery within the United States, this is a war that MUST be fought. As the constant Arab-Israeli wars have demonstrated, attempting to persuade them to change on their own will result in failure and open warfare. In other words, even though we do not want to, we may have to kill many of these ‘good’ Muslims before this war is over. Just like the good Germans and good Japanese in 1944. It does not matter if they are ‘good people’. Nor will it matter if they are ‘moderates’.
Modern governments do not tax Muslims for living in their area of authority. Any payment made by Muslims cannot exempt them from military service. Taxation and conscription are functions of the modern national government. NO ‘religion’ should be able to wield this authority. Another area where Islam is in conflict is enforcement of its laws.
The Catholic Church cannot enforce its prohibition on abortion. (I am personally against abortion, but this is beside the point) Islamic law is the mechanism for the enforcement of ‘religious’ law. Another issue of this type is the penalty for leaving Islam is death. Actually, this is one of the fundamental flaws in Islam. This is one of the primary reasons why Sunni and Shiite have been unable to reconcile their differences. NO religion should have the ability to enforce this ‘law’, nor should any followers be allowed to get away with killing those who seek an alternative religious belief. Yet this is still an important ‘law’ within the Islamic world.
I cannot see why anyone would need to discuss the subject of beating your wife. Yet the Islamic world has a large disagreement on this issue. Apparently, many within the Islamic world interpret a phase in the Koran as allowing men to physically strike their wives. Far more agreement exists with the concept that a man may take his wife against her will. Makes sense that if you could rape your wife, (We in the West define rape as sex without the woman’s consent) that you would be allowed to ‘soften’ her up first.
No person is to be stoned to death. The Koran specifies that the rocks can’t be large enough to kill with one blow, yet not qualify to be a pebble. This type of penalty has to go the way of the guillotine.
To top all of this off (And I have left out plenty of repulsive issues) NO ‘religion’ should be able to field an armed force to enforce its laws. These terrorist groups have one thing in common. They seek to implement Islamic law. These terrorist groups are literally the army of Islam. Jihad - Historically, the most common interpretation has been ARMED struggle for the advancement and defense of Muslim POWER. Want to start a war? Let’s have religion field armies like they did back in the Middle Ages.
In the 40 years of my study of warfare, I cannot think of ANY armed conflict where I was able to identify a list of reasons for the cause of the violence in anything like the numbers presented here. Please note that this list is NOT complete. I would also like to point out that ‘extremists’ within the Islamic world are NOT the only Muslims who believe in these concepts. A sizeable minority if not a majority of Muslims worldwide believes in at least some of these concepts. All it takes is one or two good issues to cause a war. (Example: The US Civil War issues were slavery and states rights) Islam contains far more that its fair share.
I consider the vast majority of Muslims to be ‘good’ people. A basic problem here is that like the good southerners who defended the evil of slavery and the way of life that revolved around that ‘peculiar’ institution, the ‘good’ Muslims will also defend these concepts with their lives. And like the good southerners, they will not change their beliefs without open warfare. Like the war to end slavery within the United States, this is a war that MUST be fought. As the constant Arab-Israeli wars have demonstrated, attempting to persuade them to change on their own will result in failure and open warfare. In other words, even though we do not want to, we may have to kill many of these ‘good’ Muslims before this war is over. Just like the good Germans and good Japanese in 1944. It does not matter if they are ‘good people’. Nor will it matter if they are ‘moderates’.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Al Qaeda offers truce to Obama if US pulls out of Afghanistan
Remember this deal? This was the topic back in August of 2009. This idea fits with President Obama’s desire to be out of both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the Presidential election cycle of 2012. Of course, with this unilateral withdrawal, Al Qaeda does not need to honor any truce. (Please note the term: "Truce" or cease-fire.) A temporary ending of the shooting. This war is far from being over.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Islamic law
Last year, a New Jersey family court judge refused to issue a restraining order on a man to protect a woman who had divorced him. While married, her husband had a habit of forcing himself upon her after she had refused. The judge refused a restraining order that she attempted to have placed upon her ex-husband. The judge ruled that "her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs – and that he did not have ‘criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault’". Islamic law prohibits any sex outside of marriage, so it would appear that she was in no danger. One problem here is that rape is generally not about sex, it is about power.
Sanity has since been restored as the New Jersey Appellate court overturned the ruling last June.
This is in NEW JERSEY!!
The war is heading this way.
Sanity has since been restored as the New Jersey Appellate court overturned the ruling last June.
This is in NEW JERSEY!!
The war is heading this way.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Hate
Hate has caused wars. I can see why. I don’t quite understand hate as well as I should, maybe because I really don’t want to. A big problem is that it is likely that you really don’t think that you hate any particular group.
I posted a reply from an anti President Obama e-mail earlier this week. This quote really bothered me.
"My girlfriend’s mother is doctor who HATES Obama. Seriously HATES him. But her daughter cant get health insurance (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha). Can you believe that – her own daughter cant get health insurance."
This is a person who is taking pleasure from some else’s misfortune. And he even knows her! Accusations can reveal much about an accuser. Something must really bother him to feel that way. This IS hatred. He doesn’t seem to hate his girlfriend. He doesn’t seem to think much of her mother. What the hell does he hate so much? Of course, we will never be able to convince him that this is what he is doing. Who me? I don’t hate anybody or anything. I am a model of tolerance. This is an easy trap to fall into. We are all vulnerable. The most important thing is to be honest with yourself. We are all human with all of the failings of our species.
Hate can be used. Just look at how hate has been used by people throughout history to further their own interests. Islam is using hate as well. Anger and hate tend to go together. Anger is one of the few human emotions allowed within Islam. Combine this with all of the frustrations inherent with the restrictions that Islam places upon it’s followers, it makes sense that hate is a more common emotion found within the Islamic world as compared with other cultures that have more outlets for human emotions. Maybe people like the one quoted above are so convinced that they are right, that they fail to see how they are controlled by their hatred. It then is easy to be controlled by others. I doubt any cure exists. Hate is somewhat natural to humans, as is conflict. Naturally, armed conflict can easily contain more hate than anything else. (Even in the relative ‘clean’ wars like Germany against the U.S. and England 1939-1945)
Recognizing hate is difficult, particularly for those who are constantly leveling accusations at others hatred. I am constantly being accused of hatred. Not directly, but as a group. Well, hatred CAN go both ways.
I am not against the personal religious part of Islam that requires Muslims to eat certain food, or pray in certain ways, or fast. However, I am at WAR against political Islam, Islamic law and Islamic nationalism. NO 'religion' can field an army, nor can ANY 'religion' enforce its laws. If that is hate, then we understand each other.
I posted a reply from an anti President Obama e-mail earlier this week. This quote really bothered me.
"My girlfriend’s mother is doctor who HATES Obama. Seriously HATES him. But her daughter cant get health insurance (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha). Can you believe that – her own daughter cant get health insurance."
This is a person who is taking pleasure from some else’s misfortune. And he even knows her! Accusations can reveal much about an accuser. Something must really bother him to feel that way. This IS hatred. He doesn’t seem to hate his girlfriend. He doesn’t seem to think much of her mother. What the hell does he hate so much? Of course, we will never be able to convince him that this is what he is doing. Who me? I don’t hate anybody or anything. I am a model of tolerance. This is an easy trap to fall into. We are all vulnerable. The most important thing is to be honest with yourself. We are all human with all of the failings of our species.
Hate can be used. Just look at how hate has been used by people throughout history to further their own interests. Islam is using hate as well. Anger and hate tend to go together. Anger is one of the few human emotions allowed within Islam. Combine this with all of the frustrations inherent with the restrictions that Islam places upon it’s followers, it makes sense that hate is a more common emotion found within the Islamic world as compared with other cultures that have more outlets for human emotions. Maybe people like the one quoted above are so convinced that they are right, that they fail to see how they are controlled by their hatred. It then is easy to be controlled by others. I doubt any cure exists. Hate is somewhat natural to humans, as is conflict. Naturally, armed conflict can easily contain more hate than anything else. (Even in the relative ‘clean’ wars like Germany against the U.S. and England 1939-1945)
Recognizing hate is difficult, particularly for those who are constantly leveling accusations at others hatred. I am constantly being accused of hatred. Not directly, but as a group. Well, hatred CAN go both ways.
I am not against the personal religious part of Islam that requires Muslims to eat certain food, or pray in certain ways, or fast. However, I am at WAR against political Islam, Islamic law and Islamic nationalism. NO 'religion' can field an army, nor can ANY 'religion' enforce its laws. If that is hate, then we understand each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
