Iran sentences 11 demonstrators to death

Iran has executed two convicted demonstrators. Iran also has sentenced at least 9 other demonstrators to death. These were convicted of demonstrating against the results of the election last summer.

Iran has no gays. This is because they hang the ones that they find. I guess Iran does not have any resistance to it’s governance either, because they will execute those that they find. This is tied into Islamic law and governance. Iran is an Islamic governed country where Islamic law is enforced. Islam has a VERY harsh penal code. Islam has plenty of death penalties.

Islam has little to no crime because the penalties are so severe. Yea, that Middle Ages concept is still around. Ideas like stoning people to death and beating your wife and Jihad and a religion that fields armies.

Iran may not be stoning these people to death, but the ideology is from 620 AD. Another major problem is that Islam has NOT evolved from this brutal time period.

Muslim anger

Muslims worldwide are angry over the "Jesus scopes". The scopes of some US sharpshooter’s weapons have numerical codes that refer to passages in the Bible. Naturally, nobody likes being shot at. But to do so with weapons with competing religious codes is particularly insulting to Muslims. In the past, I have noticed how Muslims are sensitive to insult.

Have you ever noticed how sensitive you become when you are angry? I am referring to sensitivity to others behavior, like cutting you off when you are driving or something that someone says that normally would not bother you that much. This is basic human nature at work. Anger in the Muslim world is a natural by-product of the Islamic system of governance and beliefs.

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious." -- Ayatollah Khomeini

This guy is an Islamic scholar. He may be a bit over the edge, but as he states, the basic ideology of Islam is very repressive.

Islam’s legal system is one of the most (If not THE most) harsh, brutal and repressive legal systems in the world. History has demonstrated time and again that repression of human nature tends to generate anger and violence. Humans (Like children) need a certain amount of restriction of behavior. We all need to have limits, otherwise chaos would result as everyone just did what they wanted to, including murder and other destructive behaviors. Like so many things in human experience, too many restrictions or too many limitations cause humans to resist or seek alternative behavior. I am not a psychologist, however my studies of warfare have shown that anger is an important part of courage. Anger can also cause you to make poor decisions in the ‘heat of the moment’. With undisciplined anger, violence is a natural byproduct. In the military, discipline is the vital training that soldiers need to learn how to handle the stress so that they can make cool decisions in the ‘heat of the moment’. Islam leaves out this vital training.

Humans will seek alternative avenues for emotions when under stress. Anger is a common emotional outlet in the Islamic world as it is one of the few emotions that is allowed to be expressed openly. As I have stated, I am not a psychologist, but it appears to me that the source of the anger management problems within the Islamic world is Islam itself. Just look at the symptoms. (Anger, hostility, sensitivity to insult, undisciplined violence)

I see so many descriptions (And film) of anger in the Muslim world when anything negative occurs concerning their ‘religion’. This anger is matched with open hostility. This hostility is directed against anyone for any supposed action that should not have been taken because we (whoever) lack sensitivity to Islam. In fact, sensitivity to insult is just about impossible to predict because so many different cases appear to exist that will in fact insult Muslims. And the human part about all of this is that I would act the same way, given the same repression.

The limitations that Muslims must live under (Both man and woman) are enough to drive anyone to anger. You can’t even look at a pretty woman (Assuming that you can even see her) without having to avert your eyes. Many of the little enjoyments in life are taken away with few outlets for emotions that ALL humans have. Individuals can cope to varying degrees, but the overall result can only be anger, sensitivity to insult and violence. (Both organized and spontaneous)

Islamic law in action

I pulled parts of these two articles from CNN.com today 1/21/10

A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.
The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the al- Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes.

In a different case:

A 13-year-old Saudi schoolgirl is to be given 90 lashes in front of her classmates after she was caught with a mobile camera phone.
The girl, who has not been named, was also sentenced to two months in jail by a court in the eastern city of Jubail.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1244689/Saudi-girl-13--sentenced-90-lashes-took-mobile-phone-school.html#ixzz0dFv0MC69

Public floggings are common in Saudi Arabia. As I stated in a prior post, I am not for intervention in the sovereignty of other countries. Punishment for crimes is the internal affairs of other countries. However, what I would like to point out is the backwardness of the entire ideology.

Saudi Arabia is the source of Islam. It is the home of Mecca and Medina, the birthplace of Islam and the place where Muslims are obligated to visit if they have the means. This is one of the pillars of Islam. Saudi Arabia is where Islamic law originated and is enforced. Saudi Arabia is about as backward as they come.

I read a statement by an important Saudi speaking of the choices women have in Islam. "They can get married, or become public property." Another comment was that theft does not occur if the penalty was implemented that cut off the hands of thieves. This is the same type of thinking that prompted the president of Iran to say that Iran has no gays. He did not say that the reason was that they execute those that they find. If strict penalty was a complete deterrent of crime, then a very strict penal code would eliminate ALL crime. Along with the concept of public flogging, this ideology is from the Middle Ages. As is being demonstrated with just these two cases, one of the most strict and brutal legal systems in the world has NOT eliminated crime.

These reasons are not enough to go to war over. However, the authoritarian ideology that goes along with such a brutal system can and does easily accept many other concepts that ARE the source of violent confrontation and open warfare. This is the case with Islamic foreign policy, a policy that DOES cross the line of sovereignty and national boundaries.

Iran sentences two to death by stoning

The Koran specifies the death penalty in numerous cases. In several of these cases, death by stoning is prescribed. One of these is a married woman who is convicted of adultery. By modern standards, Islam is a very harsh and authoritarian system of governance. Riots occurred in Nigeria in 2006 because the court refused to enforce the penalty. Several cases of stoning to death have been enforced recently in Somalia. As these cases demonstrate, the Islamic legal system is alive and well in the world. Stoning to death is a particularly brutal method of inflicting the death penalty.

I am not necessarily against the death penalty. I am also against violation of a nation’s sovereignty. However, stoning to death is a Middle Ages (or earlier) concept whose time has long passed. In addition, this penalty is specified by a ‘religion’, not a national government. If any government has anything like this enforceable within it’s legal system, that very government should be held in contempt. Not that this alone is justification for removal of the government. However, the very fact that stoning to death is an enforceable penalty is a good reason to keep a very close eye on that government’s activities as other Middle Ages concepts may also be present. Concepts like support of an armed ‘religious’ crusade (terrorist groups fighting for Jihad, or violation of any nations sovereignty because that government is seen as an ’occupier’) that would justify the toppling of any modern government and replacement with a more modern system of governance.

Islam and extremism

In February of 2008, an ‘extremist’ killed a number of people at Northern Illinois University, then killed himself. In an article published in the Chicago Tribune (Metro Section) 2/18/08, the author implied that ‘extremist’ ideology that is present in many parts of the Middle East is similar to the NIU incident. I find this concept difficult to believe.

It is most unlikely that Kazmierczak could ever have obtained a 15+ megaton nuclear warhead with the missile to deliver it from a range of 1000+ miles. On the other hand, it is only a matter of time before an Islamic terrorist organization is able to obtain this far more devastating weapon. (Or weapons) Not that we want to forget about the threat that people like Kazmierczak represent, but can Al Qaeda really be compared with him?

Many issues (Like slavery in the U.S.) have no political solution. History has shown time and again that warfare will result every time you challenge them. Many issues present within the Middle East are of this type. The people and the issues are not irrational. Robert E. Lee was not an irrational man. Can you think of a worse cause to fight for than the evil of slavery? How about the millions of good Germans and good Japanese who fought for evil during World War II? Were they all irrational? Japan produced hundreds of thousands of suicide attackers. It could arguably have become millions before it was over. Few if any of them were mentally ill. All of them were not in need of medication.

In ‘Japanese Destroyer Captain’ (Tameichi Hara) pointed out how he had to order his men to save themselves, so that they could go on to fight another day if the ship was sunk. Many disobeyed. This was not uncommon. In fact, his views were uncommon. Most preferred to die. Few Japanese soldiers were taken prisoner during the war. Many who were taken prisoner had been knocked unconscious. Some did surrender, braving the dishonor that befell them. These were a very small minority. Much documentation is available to anyone who wishes to study this subject. In any case, the majority of those soldiers did decide to take their own lives rather than be captured. They were not irrational. They were not in need of medication. They were in need of alternative ways of looking at things. As many in the Islamic world are in need of today.

Japanese culture places a very high priority upon consensus. The more people you add to the equation, the more difficult to obtain consensus. Hence, the need for a ‘take charge’ person. In addition, an ideology of superiority grew from a number of successes and the knowledge that they possessed a weapon of incredible strength in that they knew their men would and could take more discomfort than any other armed force. Their willingness to die would overcome all obstacles. This willingness to die ended up being somewhat counterproductive in that many Japanese just died not having gained anything for Japan in doing so. This is medieval thinking that showed up in other ways as well. All of this combined with a rigidity of thinking that made for disaster.

During the war, it is evident that Japanese soldiers and generals were very rigid in their thinking. They tended to divide their forces and learned only slowly from their mistakes. Captains like Hara were present, but they were a minority. Don’t get me wrong. The Japanese were very capable. The Zero was one of the best fighters in the world at the time, and in 1941-42 the best pilots in the world flew them. The Imperial Navy was one of the best in the world. The ‘long lance’ torpedo was the best in the world throughout the war. We did not discover its secrets until after the war. These were only some of their strengths. The overall point however, is that Japanese thinking was not very flexible. We are seeing some of this today.

The number 1 rule of warfare is: Know thy enemy. If you listen to Osama and other terrorist leaders, you will note that they constantly refer to Islamic laws and the Koran. Much of the education that is available in that part of the world is rote learning. It lacks background in criticism and critical analysis. Not flexible, but rigid adherence to the Koran’s teachings. We are also seeing some of the same attitudes of superiority. After all, they are much more willing to die. This will overcome all before it. The enemy (The U.S. and the ‘West’) is decadent and greedy. An important Japanese described the U.S. in 1941 as being ‘A gangster ridden country led by gangsters’. They also thought of the U.S. as being weak morally and in weak in spirit. This sounds familiar. They also underestimated us, badly.

Organized warfare on the scale that we are witnessing throughout the Islamic world is a far more dangerous threat than ‘home grown’ terrorism. (I am not referring to ‘home grown’ Islamic terrorism) Mental illness and ‘copycat’ mentality cannot be compared with the rational, organized groups present throughout the Islamic world. Medication will not help them deal with these issues. Medication would not have helped to prevent the Kamikazes. I wish it were the case.

The overall point of this discussion is to point out that Islamic terrorists are not ‘extremists’ any more than Japanese soldiers were ‘extremists’ during World War II. They were extremists from our point of view, but not from where they originated. It was a common view from where they came from. "Today the popular belief is that the Japanese who took part in BANZAI charges, flew kamikaze missions, piloted KAITENS and SHINYO ‘Bang boats’, or served as human mines, were all fanatics. Because many of the BANZAI charges were ordered on the spur-of-the-moment no doubt there was an element of fanaticism in the army’s operations. But the kamikaze, KAITEN and KAIRYU men were dedicated individuals whose calm acceptance of death illustrates the impact of ideological persuasion. Fanatical or not, their actions can only be understood when seen in relation to deep-rooted Japanese traditions and a tyrannical governmental structure." (A.J. Barker, Suicide Weapon, C1971, Page 157)

Today’s Islamic terrorists and suicide attackers are not irrational. The ideology they believe in is not uncommon. They are also the products of their culture. The very words ‘extremist’ and ‘fanatic’ imply that they are a very small minority of the population. This is incorrect. In many places, the ideology they believe in is held by a majority of the population. This is why they are so popular. This contributes as to why they are so difficult to find and destroy. This also contributes as to why they are able to rebound and create new organizations from scratch. Islamic terrorist organizations have plenty of replacements available. The only known way to end this amount of ‘extremism’ is to change the culture that nourishes them. If that culture became more moderate and less rigid, their views would become more ‘extreme’ and less desirable. As has occurred in Japan over the past 60 years. Unfortunately, this type of change is responsible for more wars than any other. The vast majority of soldiers chose to risk their lives to protect their way of life. This is why so many good Germans and Japanese fought for evil during World War II. This is why so many good Southerners also fought for evil (slavery) during the U.S. Civil War. It would be against human nature to expect the population of the Islamic world to be any different in this regard.

Islam and the next BIG war. (World War III?)

Conflict is a part of human nature; it is part of us. Conflict is as natural to us as arguing with your spouse. Not pleasant, but it is natural to argue about allocation of resources and priorities. Some issues cannot be resolved. These must be lived with. Sometimes, this is not so practical between nations or groups of people.

Some issues must be resolved, yet have no solution other than one side winning outright. Slavery is one of these types of issues. Nothing one side can give up will satisfy the other side in exchange. This requires some type of decisive instrument. Warfare is conflict raised to the most decisive level. Warfare is the decisive instrument. The vast majority of humans do not want to kill others unless absolutely necessary.

Yet issues exist that cannot be resolved in any other way. This is at least one reason why large conflicts in the form of major wars will occur every so often. It cannot be avoided. The past has indicated that it is extraordinarily dangerous to attempt to avoid. Like so many other things in life, it is generally better to face the music sooner rather than later.

Some signs that are pointing toward a big war:

1) Big wars happen every so often. The 20th century had two world wars, but the second ended more than 60 years ago. The world can be due for another. Certainly well before the end of the 21st century. Most likely prior to the 2nd half. The year 2045 will be the 100-year anniversary since the end of World War II. If this theory is correct, we can expect the war to occur before this date.

2) The populations of the current clash between Islam and the rest of the world are unprecedented. The populations whose support of each side of these issues are much too large for decisive results without WMD. Escalation is a natural part of warfare. Wars are won by the side that escalates the war to a level the other side either cannot or will not match. If the clash ever became an open war, the use of WMD is a certainty. The pattern of major, modern warfare is shorter, but larger, more powerful and destructive wars.

3) The issues present within Islam that are in conflict with the modern national government are non-negotiable. Generally, wars only require a small number of these types of issues. Islam has too many, as is being seen in all of the violent conflicts that Islam is involved in today.

4) The greatest war in man’s history was immediately preceded by the worst economic downturn in mankind’s history. The risk of hyperinflation or some other economic collapse in the U.S. could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Anytime you predict the future, you are simply guessing. One thing is certain: Wars will be fought. Big wars will occur. Human nature demands it. It is only a matter of time. The question is: When?

President Obama: We are at war

I am pleased to know that President Obama considers us to be at war. I am worried that he underestimates our enemy. His statement was that we are at war against Al-Qaeda. Once again, he is focused upon a single terrorist group, as if the other Islamic terrorist groups are not related in any way, making them unavailable for our attention. As anyone who reads this blogs knows, I believe that the war is much more widespread than just a few thousand ‘extremists’.

One of the complaints about the war in Vietnam was that we failed to hold ground. We would fight for a hill, and then leave a few days later. The enemy was left in possession of the ground that our men had died for. Conversely, the strategy in Iraq was that once we took something, we held it. This strategy worked far better. This reminds me of an incident in World War II: On March 2nd, 1945 the Allied Command ordered General George Patton to bypass the German city of Trier because it would take 4 divisions to take it. Patton replied that he had already taken it with two. "What do you want me to do? Give it back?" This is precisely what President Obama is going to do.

The United States took the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though fighting is still going on, President Obama is pulling out of Iraq as quickly as he can. He is launching attacks into Pakistan, but our forces will take no ground. He will deploy a few thousand more troops into Afghanistan, and then he will get us out of there as well. Everyone already knows this well before it occurs. I just do not see any point in losing any troops in this effort. Why not just leave now?

This is a losing strategy. A few years ago, my wife and I were listening to NPR while an expert on the Middle East was being interviewed. He was asked why had the U.S. not been hit again. It had been more than 5 years since 9/11. He said that he did not know. My wife (A Democrat) said "Duh! The war in Iraq! And this guy is an expert?" I guess she did listen to me a little.

"Kill the occupiers" is an important part of the ideology of our enemy. By our taking Iraq and Afghanistan, we forced our enemies to attack our military. Not a good match up for them. This was taking the strategic offensive and forcing our enemies to react to our moves. By our withdrawal from these two countries, we are assuming the strategic defensive. We cannot win this war by only good defense. President Obama is going to attempt to prove me wrong. I am guessing that we should all know who is correct before the end of his first term.

Political Islam is the basic cause of the war

Political Islam has been and is still at war against the modern nation-state. Many of the concepts within "political" Islam are at war against the United States as well as much of the rest of the world.

The moral obligation to kill ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land has to end. The ‘religion’ may own land, but to mobilize an Islamic army is a concept from the Middle Ages. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. This ‘authentic’ law is a basic reason for much of the violent conflict internal to Islam.

Once enough people disagree in a significant way about the interpretation of an ‘authentic’ law, the rest of Islam sees them as having left the faith. They have become Apostates. The penalty is death, along with the loss of property (booty) that is the reward for the warriors who enforce the law. Although payment of booty is not as common today, this ‘authentic’ law is a major part of the reason why warfare is so common internal to Islam.

"Political" Islam is a one way street. Once you become Muslim, you cannot go back. Once land is controlled by Islam, it can never become non-Muslim. (In the eyes of Islam.) Once another entity ‘occupies’ it, then a moral obligation to kill the ‘occupiers’ is triggered. This is closely tied in with Jihad. As Bernard Lewis points out: "For the fourteen hundred years of Muslim history, Jihad has been most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power." Political Islam cannot be allowed to mobilize an army and enforce these types of rules. Wars are fought over issues like this.

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 and 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. This is the common cause of much of the warfare within the Islamic world. 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’.

The payment of the ‘poll tax’ (Tribute) is another part of ‘political’ Islam that conflicts with the modern nation state. Taxation and conscription are functions of the national government, not religion. Political Islam is fighting against the evolution of the national governments movement into areas that Islam has historically held.

These issues can be seen to be important influencing factors in the many Arab-Israeli wars. This helps explain why peace has been so elusive. The issues are much too important to be decided without violence. Warfare is conflict raised to the most decisive level. Some conflicts cannot be decided any other way. Islam has a number of issues that are of this type.

These issues not only trigger violence and warfare, but also can been seen to be impossible to eliminate without violence and warfare. These issues are combining with the general repressive nature of Islamic law and contributing as to why so much of the Muslim world has such anger management problems. This is useful in fielding an army, something that historically, Islam has been good at. We are seeing the Islamic army in action today. This must end before this ‘army’ gets it’s hands on nuclear weapons, or some other effective WMD. At that point, the war will escalate, possibly out of control. It is worth waging large, conventional warfare to prevent.