In my last post, I made it clear that no deals should be struck with Islamic terrorist organizations. (Or any terrorist organization) This is a general rule that I would follow under no exceptions that I can think of. Exceptions may exist, I just don’t see any at this time.
Generally, I admire the way that Israel deals with terrorism. A couple of weeks ago, Israel made a deal with Hezbollah to exchange five prisoners that were in Israeli jails for two dead Israeli soldiers. I do not understand the deal. However, I do not live there. I don’t know many of the facets of the Arab-Israeli relationship. I still disagree with the idea. Because I favor the general Israeli handling of terrorist issues, I am willing to accept it. Pakistan is a different situation entirely.
I am NOT willing to accept the government of Pakistan making deals with the Taliban because Pakistan has a history of overt support of the Taliban and it’s ideology. Not only is a large portion of the population of Pakistan in favor of many of the Talibans ideas, many people within the government of Pakistan are also in favor of much of what the Taliban stand for. This is why I feel it is so important to keep such a close eye on Pakistan.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Pakistani hostages
This past Friday, the Taliban released 8 out of more than 3 dozen Pakistani officials that were being held hostage. The Taliban has been successful in making deals with the Pakistani government since the new government took office in February of this year. Seeing as the Taliban was threatening to kill them all, this looks like the Taliban is interested in another deal.
As a general rule, I am not contraire. I like to come up with my own ideas. Regarding Islamic terrorism however, whatever they want, or I see as good for them, I want the opposite. NO DEALS. This is why I have been critical of the Pakistani government. This is why I see this situation as a good indicator as to how serious the Pakistani government is in fighting organized terrorism.
As a historical note, President Lincoln ended trading prisoners during the U.S. Civil War. Up until that point, a one to one trade between Union prisoners and Confederate prisoners was common. President Lincoln realized that with a numerical superiority of 3 to 1 over the Confederacy, it was not in the Union’s interest for a 1 to 1 trade. In fact, it was not in the Union’s interest to trade prisoners at all. This policy of no deals held from that point on until the end of the war.
As a general rule, I am not contraire. I like to come up with my own ideas. Regarding Islamic terrorism however, whatever they want, or I see as good for them, I want the opposite. NO DEALS. This is why I have been critical of the Pakistani government. This is why I see this situation as a good indicator as to how serious the Pakistani government is in fighting organized terrorism.
As a historical note, President Lincoln ended trading prisoners during the U.S. Civil War. Up until that point, a one to one trade between Union prisoners and Confederate prisoners was common. President Lincoln realized that with a numerical superiority of 3 to 1 over the Confederacy, it was not in the Union’s interest for a 1 to 1 trade. In fact, it was not in the Union’s interest to trade prisoners at all. This policy of no deals held from that point on until the end of the war.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Neutron bomb
I have always favored building Nuetron bombs. I don't know if the U.S. has any of these weapons today. In the war against terrorism today, time is NOT on our side. Sooner or later, one of these organizations will obtain and deploy an effective WMD. We may be forced to respond with nukes. If this is the case, Nuetron bombs just may be a good choice. At least in some areas.
The Neutron bomb is a tactical nuclear weapon. The blast area is small for nuclear weapons. The weapon has such a design as to produce intensive radiation that decays rapidly. This produces a high fatality rate for those who are inside its blast area. Those who are outside of its range can safely enter the area within a short period of time. One argument against this weapon is that it is more likely to be used than the other weapons that are available. This would make the use of WMD more likely. The area impacted by these weapons is relatively small. The use of these weapons would require more of them to obtain the same overall damage. An argument for the use of this weapon is that if you do need to use weapons of mass destruction, then this has the most limited ecological impact in both the short term and long term. In addition, relatively small targets may not require ‘larger’ nuclear weapons.
We will more than likely see another world war. Human nature almost demands it. The next world war will most likely see the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. Should Neutron bombs be available? The risk of the war becoming more likely is offset by the advantages in potential limits of long term ecological damage that exclusive use of neutron bombs could realize.
The Neutron bomb is a tactical nuclear weapon. The blast area is small for nuclear weapons. The weapon has such a design as to produce intensive radiation that decays rapidly. This produces a high fatality rate for those who are inside its blast area. Those who are outside of its range can safely enter the area within a short period of time. One argument against this weapon is that it is more likely to be used than the other weapons that are available. This would make the use of WMD more likely. The area impacted by these weapons is relatively small. The use of these weapons would require more of them to obtain the same overall damage. An argument for the use of this weapon is that if you do need to use weapons of mass destruction, then this has the most limited ecological impact in both the short term and long term. In addition, relatively small targets may not require ‘larger’ nuclear weapons.
We will more than likely see another world war. Human nature almost demands it. The next world war will most likely see the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. Should Neutron bombs be available? The risk of the war becoming more likely is offset by the advantages in potential limits of long term ecological damage that exclusive use of neutron bombs could realize.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Palestinian collaborators sentenced as spies
Two Palestinian collaborators were convicted last week. They were convicted of helping Israel in identifying the locations of two Palestinians who were later killed by Israeli forces. The sentence is death by firing squad. The President of the PA must approve death sentences. HAMAS has said that they will ‘seek other alternatives’ if President Abbas does not approve of the court action.
During wartime, it is not uncommon to shoot spies. HAMAS is and has acted as if they are at war with Israel. This fits the pattern that Islam in general and Islamic terrorist organizations specifically are at war with the world. Not all Muslims are involved, by any stretch. However, Islam was designed to rule everything and everyone. Unless those features of Islam are eliminated, the war will continue through proxies like HAMAS, Hezbollah, AQ and all of the other Islamic terror groups and governments who live and support Islamic ideology. This is not extreme Islamic ideology. The worst part is that this applies to much of the common interpretation of the Koran.
During wartime, it is not uncommon to shoot spies. HAMAS is and has acted as if they are at war with Israel. This fits the pattern that Islam in general and Islamic terrorist organizations specifically are at war with the world. Not all Muslims are involved, by any stretch. However, Islam was designed to rule everything and everyone. Unless those features of Islam are eliminated, the war will continue through proxies like HAMAS, Hezbollah, AQ and all of the other Islamic terror groups and governments who live and support Islamic ideology. This is not extreme Islamic ideology. The worst part is that this applies to much of the common interpretation of the Koran.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Jihad
I am hearing from some ‘westerners’ who are Muslim that Jihad is an internal struggle. That the terrorists are being incorrectly labeled jihadists. In the long run, for Islam to become agreeable with the rest of the world, this view will need to be adopted by ALL Muslims. The problem today is that this is only one of two ways of viewing jihad. This is actually a watered down version of Islam and is viewed as being incorrect by much of the Islamic world. To suggest this version of Jihad will place you in danger of being accused of being an Apostate. The term Apostate and the penalty for conviction are NOT an overlooked Islamic legal term. The death penalty for this offense has been enforced strictly throughout the Middle East for the entire Islamic history of 1400 years.
Jihad has two meanings. The first is the version mentioned above: It is the internal struggle to improve yourself. The second is armed force. The problem is that the second is and has been far more accepted.
Bernard Lewis is a well-known and respected historian on the Middle East. "For the majority of the fourteen hundred years of Islamic history, jihad has been most commonly interpreted as being ARMED struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power."
"The implication is that Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until either the entire world adopts Islam, or is subjected to Muslim rule."
If you look at the Islamic legal system and its laws, you will notice the organized effort to expand the ‘religion’ at the expense of everything and everyone else that is not Muslim. The overall effect can only be discrimination against anything that does not agree with Islam. This is quite deliberate. Taken in context with all of the Koran and Islamic law, it is obvious that it was designed this way.
Jihad has two meanings. The first is the version mentioned above: It is the internal struggle to improve yourself. The second is armed force. The problem is that the second is and has been far more accepted.
Bernard Lewis is a well-known and respected historian on the Middle East. "For the majority of the fourteen hundred years of Islamic history, jihad has been most commonly interpreted as being ARMED struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power."
"The implication is that Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until either the entire world adopts Islam, or is subjected to Muslim rule."
If you look at the Islamic legal system and its laws, you will notice the organized effort to expand the ‘religion’ at the expense of everything and everyone else that is not Muslim. The overall effect can only be discrimination against anything that does not agree with Islam. This is quite deliberate. Taken in context with all of the Koran and Islamic law, it is obvious that it was designed this way.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Pakistani standoff
Pakistan has a real problem right now. Some Taliban fighters were captured last week, so they responded by capturing about 30 local government officials. The threat is that unless the captured Taliban members are not released, they would be executed.
This is a good test of exactly where the newly elected government of Pakistan stands and how strong they are willing to be in fighting Islamic extremism. I have been critical of the Pakistani government for making those deals back in February and March. I believe that those same deals are one of the reasons that the violence in Afghanistan has gone up this spring. Today’s standoff between the Pakistani government and the Taliban will help us see how determined the Pakistani government really is in fighting Islamic terrorism.
This is a good test of exactly where the newly elected government of Pakistan stands and how strong they are willing to be in fighting Islamic extremism. I have been critical of the Pakistani government for making those deals back in February and March. I believe that those same deals are one of the reasons that the violence in Afghanistan has gone up this spring. Today’s standoff between the Pakistani government and the Taliban will help us see how determined the Pakistani government really is in fighting Islamic terrorism.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Stopping an enemy attack
During wartime, it is easier to encourage an enemy to attack you in a given place than it is to prevent an attack in a given place. Both can be difficult, but the first is much easier to accomplish and has been done countless times throughout history. The 2nd has been done many times as well. However, it usually was because an offensive was launched that forced the enemy to defend themselves in a different area. The problem with this strategy is that it requires having adequate resources to launch an effective attack. Counterattacks have been attempted many times without enough resources. The final result ended up being worse than allowing the opponent to attack in the first place.
Concerning the war in Iraq today, the U.S. is fighting the war with a peacetime army. Our enemy has nowhere near the resources that we posses, even with the U.S. on a peacetime footing. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is preventing our enemy from attacking us effectively elsewhere.
The bad news is that our enemy has an ideology that is engrained in a huge population spread out over many countries. The war has the potential to become much larger even without the use of WMD. Or more likely, the war will last so long that the U.S. and its allies become tired of war and give up.
The good news is that the enemy ‘army’ would have to obtain much more overt help in order to force the U.S. to decide to mobilize. WMD is the most likely way that this would occur. Also, the U.S. can increase the size of it’s armed forces considerably, it if needed to. The use of WMD by our enemy would make this mandatory.
Concerning the war in Iraq today, the U.S. is fighting the war with a peacetime army. Our enemy has nowhere near the resources that we posses, even with the U.S. on a peacetime footing. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is preventing our enemy from attacking us effectively elsewhere.
The bad news is that our enemy has an ideology that is engrained in a huge population spread out over many countries. The war has the potential to become much larger even without the use of WMD. Or more likely, the war will last so long that the U.S. and its allies become tired of war and give up.
The good news is that the enemy ‘army’ would have to obtain much more overt help in order to force the U.S. to decide to mobilize. WMD is the most likely way that this would occur. Also, the U.S. can increase the size of it’s armed forces considerably, it if needed to. The use of WMD by our enemy would make this mandatory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
