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.

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’.
　　

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.
　
　

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.

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.

Mosque near ground zero

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's lofty defense of the so-called Ground Zero mosque, which won de facto approval yesterday, missed a larger point, Prozac Nation author Elizabeth Wurtzel writes in The Daily Beast: It's just a good strategy. Wurtzel says there will always be Muslim extremists, even inside America, but that it's unlikely that there are radicals behind the Cordoba House. And if there are? "Well, keep your friends close and your enemies closer," Wurtzel writes. It's good strategy, a potential bargaining chip if something bad happens down the road. And allowing the mosque to be built demonstrates American goodwill and our tradition of religious tolerance. Moderate Muslims want "to be part of this miserable legacy, because, as they want us to know, they are loyal Americans, too."

Bargaining chip? What can Islam offer us in return? A truce or cease-fire?

The last sentence is wrong. Moderate Muslims are (In general) more loyal to Islam. Islam does not really have 3 sides, as we understand politics. We have those on the left, the moderates who are in the middle and those who are on the right. (Generally) Islam has those who are loyal to Islamic governance, and the rest who are seen as apostates by those who are loyal to Islamic law. These are the ‘Moderates’ as we would understand them, but a major problem with this is what I refer to as the ‘Good southerners’. Those who are good people and moderate in their thinking but are loyal to the way of life that had been built around slavery. These ‘good southerners’ were NOT approachable about getting rid of that ‘peculiar institution’. Just look at Robert E. Lee. Some moderate.

This proposed Mosque that is to be built near ground zero is not really going to be a mosque. It will be an embassy. It will be considered to be ‘Muslim land’. And it can be defended violently against ANY and ALL invaders. Just look at how mosques are defended throughout the world. This embassy will spread Islamic ideology, culture and its own ‘peculiar’ legal system. All of which are openly hostile to our ideology, our legal system and our culture. We will really begin to lose the war.

Comments on reply

I received this e-mail as a reply from friends’ e-mail that had bashed President Obama as having done nothing.

"Team,

I can tell you from being an engineer in the private sector that volumes (orders) are up, production efficiency is up, hiring is up & 401K has been restored…..back to business prior to the Bush recession. My job as an engineer is to find "root causes" to challenges (not problems, challenges). I am buying a home, paying off my college debt and kicking ass in the economy. So keep complaining because as you do – I just pass you up. Republicans, as usual, continue to utilize the "taking control of private sector" but I talked to someone in pharmaceutical sales and they like the new government standards. No more kick-backs and/or gifts so everyone is on a fair playing field.
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. So now – she (Dr. Wolf) thinks that Obama has done 1 thing right. Y’know what – I agree with her. Its called progression – bringing the quality of life up for everybody.
The poor choices of Bush have resulted in a sky-rocketing deficit because of wars charged to supplements (basically putting the cost on a credit card for 8 years and rolling it over each year into Obama’s budget) and tax cuts to the rich (trickle-down economics) that did NOT benefit the people underneath. That is not to say that trickle-down doesn’t work but it didn’t work in this instance. It is not a catch-all for the American economy. His failed housing policy ran by Congress (republican at the time 2000 - 2006) caused an inflated market to suddenly burst which put further strain on the economy. After all; most people value their lives and net worth on the equity in their home & 410K. Speaking of – all the money I lost in my 401 K has been restored with a bit extra (thanks Barack, my homey).
The point of the above is not to assign "blame" but to point out the "root cause" of the state of the Union is Bush’s choices. Its not blame – irrefutable evidence of his choices point to the root cause of the problem. That’s it – nothing more to say except that it makes sense for a black man to be cleaning up after Bush – he’s used to it.
The 2 wars are, quite possibly, the greatest mistake in US history (besides electing bush, of course).
Got any questions on who should be running the country. Watch the link below when Obama goes to the GOP after the state of the union and takes question. One word: Teflon. Untouchable by republicans with their rhetoric because…………its untrue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vxi27Jy85I
Watch it an then reply back with your accusations. Teflon B*tches."

End e-mail:

I am sorry about the length of this e-mail. This is a typical e-mail reply that I have seen.

So he is doing well? COOL! I just wish that more were. (Myself included) He takes on a lot of subjects, but doesn’t go into much depth. Plenty of name calling. What disturbs me is the pleasure that he is taking from the misfortune of others. I suppose this is because it proves his point. Not a very admirable quality. In addition, according to him, HATE must be the ‘dark side’ of Republicans. I suppose that no hate exists on his side. HIS side is clean. Yea, sure.
These issues are trouble enough, but the reason that I am posting this quote is because of his misunderstanding of the causes of the wars.

It is true that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us a great deal. I am certain that Adam agrees with Obama in that U.S. foreign policy was the cause of the wars in the first place and with our getting out, we will end the entire business. And you get political benefit as well, (Particularly if you can do it before the U.S. election in 2012) however, this can only be regarded as secondary to the primary function of ending the war.

I think I understand President Obama’s position. I just don’t know if the hyperinflation will hit us first, or the Islamic terrorists. I am not referring to another Fort Hood. I am speaking of a major assault. Maybe I am just being paranoid, but our leadership is NOT moderate. The results we obtain from his efforts will likely not be moderate either.
　

Taboo

I have a close relative who lived with a guy for close to 20 years. One day, after she had turned down his advance; he beat her and raped her. This brings up the rule that boys are taught since childhood that you do not EVER hit a girl. Today, of course if some woman struck first and was kicking your ass, you bet you would defend yourself. How often does this happen? The basic rule holds fast: As a boy or a man, you NEVER strike a girl.

Within the Islamic world, a fairly large argument is taking place where the interpretation of the Koran allows not only that you can hit a woman, but also can take your wife by force. Some say that the Koran allows it, others say no. I do not know the particulars of interpretation of Arabic. I have heard that inflection of voice imparts meaning, so the written word can be interpreted in multiple ways because the inflection is left out. Actually, I do not give a damn. Just the fact that this argument is going on makes me sick.

Physical violence upon women is not just a problem within the Islamic world. However, it is a much larger problem within the Muslim world simply because the above argument about striking your wife is actually taking place. Combine this with the large incident rate of ‘honor killings’ and this is a very large problem. Physical violence appears to be a common symptom of the Islamic community for a number of reasons. We constantly hear about how Islam is being ‘insulted’ and some riots have occurred somewhere as a direct result. We hear about ‘honor killings’ and other acts of domestic violence like some man being spurned by a woman and threw acid upon her face. Although we in the Western world must admit that we have similar problems, they do not appear to be so consistent, nor do they appear in such frequency. After all, my relatives’ boyfriend broke a MAJOR rule when he did what he did. (Not to mention breaking the law) What if you thought that the rules allowed for this? You would believe that you did not do anything wrong. This is precisely what is going on within the Muslim world.

Much of this problem stems from the Koran itself, simply because it CAN be interpreted in ways that allow for this. With all of the controls in place to ‘help preserve the modesty of women’, it only makes sense that domestic violence would be much more common compared to places where the rules (And laws) against such behavior is absolute. This is only part of the problem.

I believe that much of the domestic violence we see within the Islamic world is simply frustration because Islam takes away so much. With so many rules against ANY type of interaction between men and women, combined with such a controlling lifestyle, it can only be expected that humans will lash out due to frustration. Anger appears to be the only emotion that IS allowed by Islam, so anger management becomes a real problem simply because it is the ONLY outlet. In any case, the idea that only a very small minority of Muslims believes that physical violence upon women is allowed by the Koran is about as weak an argument as that of southern slaveholders who beat their slaves were only a very small minority of the slave owner population. With slavery, we had to wage open warfare to rid our country of that evil. I find it very difficult to believe that it is possible for the Islamic world to adopt our view of just this one issue (Of violence against women) without ‘insulting’ Islam to the point that would justify open warfare. This is just one more reason why warfare between Islam and us is not only inevitable, but also necessary.