AL QAEDA MANUAL
By William F. McCants
Forwarded by MG Hank Stelling USAF (Ret)
Most Americans know that Al Qaeda and its franchises are willing to sink to any depth to destroy the United States. But few people realize just how deep those depths are.
The public's knowledge of the terror group's goals and motives is largely confined to the English translations of Osama Bin Laden's and Ayman al-Zawahiri's propaganda. Consequently, Al Qaeda and like-minded groups, or “jihadis,” are viewed either as unthinking zealots or misguided freedom fighters.
“The Management of Savagery” - a book written in 2004 by Abu Bakr Naji, a high-level Al Qaeda strategist - suggests that both perspectives are off the mark.
Most jihadi writings in Arabic are similar to those already available in English. These are lengthy exposés on the Western plot to destroy Islam, dense with religious references meant to justify a violent response to this plot.
Naji's book is different. Unlike typical jihadi tracts, this genre eschews religious propaganda in favor of scientific analysis, drawing on close readings of Western political theories.
In “The Management of Savagery,” Naji argues that the jihadis failed in the past to establish an Islamic state because they were focused on toppling local regimes. These efforts were fruitless, he argues, because jihadis were seen as fighting their own people, which alienated the masses.
Moreover, the local governments proved impervious to revolution as long as they were supported by the U.S. Based on his understanding of power politics, Naji says that the jihadis had to provoke the United States to invade a country in the Middle East.
1. turn the Muslims against local governments allied with the U.S.;
2. destroy the U.S. aura of invincibility, which it maintains through the media; and
3. create sympathy for the jihadis, who would be viewed as standing up to crusader aggression.
Moreover, the invasion would bleed the U.S. economy and sap its military power, leading to social unrest at home and its ultimate withdrawal from the Middle East.
Naji had hoped that Afghanistan would play out in this manner for the U.S., as it did for the Soviets. Now, Naji places his hopes on Iraq. Once the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, he contends, the jihadis must quickly move to invade neighboring countries.
Some countries are particularly ripe for jihadi incursion: Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Yemen, as well as North West Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. These areas were selected by Al Qaeda because of each region's geographic features, weak central governments, the receptivity of the people and the proliferation of weapons and jihadi propaganda.
The plan, according to Naji, is to conduct small- to medium-scale attacks on crucial infrastructure (like oil or tourism), which will cause the government to draw in its security forces. Chaos or “savagery” will erupt in the unpoliced areas.
Then, the jihadis will move into these security vacuums and provide basic services to people, who will welcome an end to the instability. The final goal is to establish a single global state ruled by a pious Muslim dictator, the caliph, who will implement a strict interpretation of Islamic law.
Drawing on the experience of jihadis in Egypt and Algeria, Naji cautions his readers that no plan will succeed unless the jihadis learn how to respond to public opinion and manipulate the media.
Many Westerners underestimate just how sophisticated and ruthless our enemy is. Reading Naji is a start to better understand our foes' mind-set, particularly because his text has Al Qaeda's seal of approval. The manual is available at www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp. Without this kind of information, the American people and our lawmakers and judges will never fully understand the awful magnitude of what we face.
This understanding is crucial for generating the bipartisan support and action so badly needed to effectively wage the long-term battle against those who would threaten our way of life. Only by knowing the depths to which the enemy will sink to defeat us will we be able to have a meaningful discussion of how far we should go to destroy them.
McCants translated “The Management of Savagery.” He is a fellow at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.
AUSTRAILIA SETS POLICY THAT U.S. SHOULD EMULATE
Forwarded by RDeal51928@aol.com
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on July 5, 2006 to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.
Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. “If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you”, he said on national television.
“I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option”, Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should “clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off”, he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques, quote: “IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.”
“However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia “
“However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.”
“This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.”
“This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom”
“We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the language!”
“Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.”
“We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.” “If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like ” A Fair Go”, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.
“This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.”
“If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.”
CHURCHILL’S VIEW OF ISLAM
Forwarded by RAdm William Thompson U.S. Navy (Ret) with this note:
“It is difficult to describe the world of Islam any more gruesome than it was a hundred years ago, but they have broadened their scope beyond Central Africa and their quest is global. Here is what Churchill said in its entirety about the horrific battle to wrest the Sudan from the jihadists of the 19th century.”
Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co.), 1899:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
“Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
“A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
CONTRAST IN CULTURES
Forwarded by LynnFried. No original source given.
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000, or 20% of the world population.
They have received the following 7 Nobel Prizes:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yaser Arafat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1999 - Ahmed Zewail
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000, or about 0.02% of the world population. They have received the following 127 Nobel Prizes:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloc h
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
- The Jews are not demonstrating with their dead on the streets, yelling and chanting and asking for revenge.
- The Jews are not promoting brain washing the children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims.
- The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics.
- The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.
- The Jews don't have the economic strength of petroleum, nor the possibilities to force the world's media to see “their side” of the question.
Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.
Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part for whatever reason, the following two sentences really say it all:
If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.
If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.
DEMON IN THE MID EAST
WHAT DOES IRAN HAVE IN STORE?
By Bernard Lewis, Journal-Opinion article
Forwarded by S.Pearce
Mr. Lewis is an author and professor emeritus at Princeton. His most recent book is “From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East” (Oxford University Press, 2004).
During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan.
In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.
It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.
Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.
Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.
The phrase “Allah will know his own” is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights—the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.
A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.
The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians—but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent—the threat of direct retaliation on Iran—is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.
In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time—Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as “by the end of August,” but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.
What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to “the farthest mosque,” usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.
A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. “I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours.”
In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead—hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam.
Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.
GHOST OF PATTON SPEAKS
Forwarded by Tom Dyer
OK, you whining, panty-waist, pathetic maggots, it's time for a little refresher course on exactly why we Americans occasionally have to fight wars.
See if you can tear yourself away from your “reality” TV and Starbucks for a minute; pull your head out of your ass - and LISTEN UP!
Islam is not a peaceful religion!
Millions of these sons-of-bitches are plotting as we speak to destroy our country and our way of life any way they can. Some of them are here among us now.
They don't want to convert you and don't want to rule you. You are a vile infestation of Allah's paradise. They don't give a shit how “progressive” you are, how peace-loving you are, or how much you sympathize with their cause. They want you dead, and think it is God's will for them to do it. And you think George Bush is your worst enemiy?
If they manage to get their hands on a nuke, chemical agents, or even some anthrax - you will wish to God we had hunted them down and killed THEM while we had the chance.
Stop bitchin' about your damned health care, Social Security, gas prices, and your measly 6% unemployment rate and start worrying about you, your family, and your friends. How many more Americans must be beheaded before you stop blaming Bush for all your troubles - and grow some balls for a change?
You've fallen asleep AGAIN, maggots! And you may not get another chance!
NOW GET OFF YOUR SORRY ASSES - and pass this on to any and every person you give a damn about - if you ever gave a damn about anything.
Western Civilization Really Is At Risk From Muslim Extremists.
By Sam Harris, published in Los Angeles Times' LATimes.com
Forwarded by Dave Benson
September 19, 2006 - Two years ago I published a book highly critical of religion, The End of Faith. In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and non-belief.
This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.
This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.
Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.
But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.
On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.
This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that “liberals are soft on terrorism.” It is, and they are.
A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a “war on terror.” We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.
This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.
Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.
Read all of this interesting story HERE. [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail ]
HEZBOLLAH’S PRESENCE IN THE U.S.
If war were to break out between the United States and Iran, how effectively could Iran strike within the United States?
Read the full article here. [http://www.penraker.com/archives/004213.html ]
For a map showing their primary concentration and another commentary on the subject, click here [http://standeyo.com/NEWS/06_Terror/060804.Hez.in.USA.html ].
ISLAM REPUBLIC OF AMERICA 100 YEAR PLAN
By Paul Sperry, FrontPageMagazine.com, August 15, 2006
When President Bush said we're at “war with Islamic fascists,” he was referring to Osama bin Laden and his acolytes in London trying to blow U.S. airliners out of the Atlantic skies.
But America has its own “Islamic fascists” right here at home. Once they amass the numbers, they secretly plan to nullify our Bill of Rights and religious freedoms and create their own Muslim state ruled by Islamic law. They've got a 100-year plan, but they're already making inroads.
Astoundingly, some of them head the allegedly moderate Muslim groups who protested Bush's use of the phrase “Islamic fascists.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations whined that the term contributes to a rising level of hostility toward Islam. “The use of ill-defined hot button terms such as 'Islamic fascists' harms our nation's image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world,” the group said in a press release.
“Our nation”? Please. CAIR really only cares about the interests of one nation — the nation of Islam — and its own leaders are on record stating their desire to replace our constitutional democracy with a fascist society (as we know it) represented by sharia law.
“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad once told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Ca. “The Quran should be the highest authority in America.”
Lest anyone think he was misquoted, CAIR's own spokesman, Dougie “Ibrahim” Hooper, let it slip to the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he essentially wants the same thing: “I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
They aren't alone:
Read the details of this bizarre theocracy already in motion by clicking here [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23858 ].
KILL, DON'T CAPTURE
By Ralph Peters, July 2006
The British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islam extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion.
A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the “unjust” imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.
We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.
Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be done. This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but it’s opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.
Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.
Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.
Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.
And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention? Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about “winning hearts and minds.” But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.
Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to kill the few.
For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo are “innocent victims” even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.
It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.
Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by anything America does.
The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.
Ralph Peters' new book, NEVER QUIT THE FIGHT is now in bookstores.
PERFECT STORM VIEW OF THE FUTURE
Foreign Policy Research Institute - Over 50 Years of Ideas in Service to Our Nation. www.fpri.org
E-Notes distributed exclusively via Fax & Email
Forwarded by BGEN R. Clements USAF (Ret)
By Frank G. Hoffman, May 12, 2006
Lt. Col. Frank G. Hoffman, USMC Reserve (ret.) is a senior fellow of FPRI. He previously served as an analyst in the Pentagon, on the Armed Forces' 1994-95 Roles and Missions Commission, and as a staff member on the Hart-Rudman Commission. This essay is based on his remarks at a brunch held at the Four Seasons Hotel in Philadelphia on April 23, 2006, celebrating FPRI's 51st year. His article, “Complex Irregular Warfare: The Next Revolution in Military Affairs,” appears in the Summer 2006 issue of “Orbis.”
Today's security environment can be described as “the New Normalcy.” Robert Kaplan has a fine article in the April 2006 Atlantic Monthly, titled, “The Coming Normalcy?” But his use of the future tense is a bit optimistic.
In the New Normalcy we already face an implacable, cunning enemy who is completely ruthless, constantly learning and altering his tactics to secure any advantage he can. We have to be prepared to face this adaptive enemy, and be equally prepared to out-think and out-adapt an elusive opponent. There are no simple solutions or templates against such adversaries. Rigid approaches and non-adaptive institutions fare poorly against this protean form of enemy.
This is a committed enemy. He is serious in his beliefs and his willingness to die for them. He is not a backward or distant threat, nor is he going away any time soon. There can be no doubt that this dangerous form of Islamic extremism will characterize our future for some time, perhaps a decade or more. This opponent is dedicated to his cause as much as we are to preserving freedom. He will continue to look for vulnerabilities, and if he can get his hands on some form of weapon of mass destruction, he will try to use it, possibly here in the United States. This is what we face and why we must succeed.
Looking further out, in the mid-range we need to be concerned with future Afghanistans and other under-governed areas. Today and tomorrow, failed or dysfunctional states can become harbors and potential breeding grounds for modern terrorists, or serve as catalysts for interstate conflicts. The CIA forecasts a coming “perfect storm” of intrastate conflict caused by demographics, youth bulges, higher unemployment, ethnic strife, and religious intolerance. This perfect storm will become the future petri dish for the next Bin Laden or the future home of the international network of jihadists who slink off after Iraq. But they will leave the battlefield much smarter, more lethal, and with far more credibility to the next generation of extremists because of their experience against us.
The New Normalcy also contains states of concern like Iran and Pakistan that could seriously disrupt regional peace due to their admixture of internal instability and lethal arsenals. The interplay of domestic politics, weak controls, and dangerous weapons could be an explosive cocktail
Read the remainder of this essay at this site. [http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20060512.americawar.hoffman.newnormalcy.html ]
PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND SUICIDE BOMBINGS
By - Pierre Rehov, documentary filmmaker
Forwarded by MG Vernon Chong, USAF (Ret.) 6 Aug 2006
Before you read this article check out this film clip [http://www.pierrerehov.com/sk_trailer_wmv_b.htm ].
As the young Arab woman in this video says,”I only want to satisfy Allah.”
Americans need to see this video and realize suicide bombers have a mission which they'll accomplish wherever and whenever they chose. Even here in the United States, if necessary.
On July 15, MSNBC's “Connected” program discussed the London attacks. One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, “Suicide Killers,” is based on interviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to a request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film.
Q - What inspired you to produce “Suicide Killers,” your seventh film?
A - I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up.
Q - Why is this film especially important?
A - People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem, showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has become their only certitude.
Q - What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know?
A - I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex.
The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.
Q - What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings?
A - It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying “Thank God, my son is dead.” Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize.
This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.
Q - You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power?
A - Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword.
Q - Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology.
A - Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the afterlife in Paradise.
Q - Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?
A - Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do.
Q - Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?
A - All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their mind, for interpretation.
The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.
Q - Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers.
A - Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior.
Q - What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings?
A - Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations through different networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel).
Q - Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision?
A - There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide.
Q - Why are so many suicide bombers young men?
A - As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheed are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman?
Q - What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation?
A - The U.N. is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communist countries. Their hands are tied. The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the U.N. leaves a door open by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the U.N. is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps.
As a support to Arab countries, the U.N. has maintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to “return” into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film “Hostages of Hatred”).
Q - You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb' simultaneously. Explain what you mean.
A - Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it.
Q - How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general?
A - Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Nazism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people.
Q - Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East?
A - Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam expands there is regional conflict. Right now, there are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning.
TERRORISM GRATES ON THE MIND
LIVING WITH TERRORISM
By Karen Harribine, August 16, 2006
Forwarded by her Dad, YNCS Don Harribine USN (Ret), a frequent contributor of articles to Keeping Apace
Mom & Dad:
I woke up this morning and wrote this. I wanted to share it with you both. It is a bit long but I appreciate your taking the time to read it:
I was born in 1955, the youngest of three girls. Some of my fondest memories are my Mom and Dad’s Parents. Going to my beloved Aunt Josie’s house on Sundays playing with my cousins, and dancing all the time. Nana cooking with her apron on in Aunt Josie’s kitchen. Eating three bowls of spaghetti with milk at my Grandparents house in Rhode Island. Playing with our kitties and my sisters in our back yard in Peabody.
I was happy.
I learned how to drive and got my first car. I worked two jobs because I wanted to and whatever we wanted we had to obtain ourselves.
The 70’s were a great time for being a teenager. I hung out with my two sisters all the time. We would go to the beach and just be teenagers and have fun. We were “Flower Children” that wore bellbottoms and Nehru shirts. I moved into my first apartment when I was 18 with a roommate. I was growing up and becoming independent.
I was happy.
I fell in love and got married in 1984. I experienced the joy and contentment of marriage until it fell apart. It hurt for awhile, but I moved on. I continued to work hard and move forward as my parents taught me to. I started to travel a lot, made many beautiful friends and life was good.
I was happy.
I became a flight attendant in the early 90’s. I was in training for one month to learn my duties. What stood out the most during this time of training was the classroom session on Terrorism. I was fascinated, intrigued and scared. I went on to fly for three years and saw a great deal of this beautiful country and many parts of Europe of which I loved dearly.
I met my second husband and married in 1995. The Lord called my beautiful sister home in 1997. I felt the pain of grief so deeply for the first time in my life. I was in shock and tried to move on in my first home that I bought.
I was sad.
Then came the day that changed my life along with every other American. On September 11, 2001 I was driving in my car and heard on the radio that a plane had hit one of the twin Towers in New York.
As I got to my destination, listening carefully to the radio alone, I felt an emptiness like my sister’s passing away. As the hours and days moved on, I would never be the same again. I look up at every plane now when I hear them. I thank God more each Sunday at church for giving me life and my Parents. Since that day, when I drive in my car, I listen to news radio now. Terrorism is everywhere. They hate us and want to kill us.
I am scared.
I listen to the news with fear. What will they do to us next? Will our leaders be able to keep up with them and keep us safe? My second marriage ended and I felt more fear not having someone in my life.
We try to live our lives through hurricanes, pain, high cost of fuel and still fear the Terrorists are going to make their next move. What color of the day is it today? Orange, red? This is not what I thought my fifties would be like. Sometimes, I wish I was still a child and not able to comprehend the fear.
I am scared.
Last week in England, British police arrested 21 people with a terrorist plot to blow up aircraft flying from the UK to the States. Their intentions were to use liquid explosives hidden in their carry on luggage and blow up the aircraft, randomly killing all aboard and people living their everyday lives on the ground. They were going to just “pick a spot” and kill.
I am having the dreams again. The ones I had for months after 9-11. I wake up and sometimes I cry.
I am scared.
I had another dream last night. I dreamt I was in my home with my Parents, my animals and we were happy. Then in my dream I saw a gigantic fireball outside my window heading towards my house. Someone screamed it was an act of terrorism. My home was burning and just as I thought I was going to see my beloved sister. I woke up. I cried for awhile.
Then I prayed and thanked the Lord it was a dream. I fell back asleep for awhile but the dream lingered on. I woke up, cried some more and prayed some more and thanked the Lord for this day and my Parents still in my life.
I felt the need to write this.
I am petrified.
EPILOGUE: (Received on August 24th)
When Dad asked me if he could forward my words to his mailing list and friends I said “Yes Dad, I'm sure many people will understand.” What I never expected was the tremendous response from all of you that has given me a different perspective of my fears.
This started out as a dream that literally was still lingering in my head when I wrote those words full of fear. I am sure many of you have had them, as a child and as an adult. My initial response was to share it with my parents. Both of them responded immediately and we talked about my dream. When I started to read the emails from all of you, I felt the conversation continuing although you were not my parents, I felt you were. I cannot thank you all enough for sharing your kindness, compassion, patriotism, and the insight you have bestowed on me.
As the fifth anniversary approaches for 9/11, I will read each an every one of your emails over again. This will indeed ease the sorrow. It will also remind me of the beautiful country will live in and how many of you contributed to it! May God Bless each and every one of you.
TERRORISM IS NON-NEGOTIABLE
From the heart of Richard Cooke, MajGen, USMC (Ret)
Forwarded by p38bob
I often mention in my posts a little Mexican restaurant that I frequent here in San Diego that goes by the name of Las Quatro Milpas, which serves the best authentic Mexican food in San Diego. I mention it today, because of what has changed when I stand in that long line in the heat down on Logan Avenue waiting for those five dear Mexican woman to serve the hundreds of us who show up before I melt in the hot sun.
The line outside of Quatro Milpas is a place to meet new friends, reunite with people you have not seen in weeks or months, but happen to get that same desire for that Chorizo at the same time you did, so that every time you show up again, you can restart your friendship as if it never stopped. Everyone has a story about how long they have been coming to Quatro Milpas or how they discovered it, or how long was the longest line they have stood in waiting to get to their food.
What has changed, is that this week, instead of the jovial mood in the line, I was struck with the thought of what would happen to this place if someone were to walk into the line, and get into the restaurant, around say 1300 hours, at the height of the lunch rush and blow about 100 people to hell in the name of Allah.
As I thought about this, I wondered what it must be like for the people if Israel, who no matter where they go, have to consider the possibility of terrorism, and that their next steps out into society might be their last. I thought about what it must be like for a little Israeli schoolchild on a bus heading from school when someone gets on the bus in the middle of summer wearing a large overcoat.
I have an anger that will not go away this morning, as I watch the media try to tell me that Israel is the aggressor, that they are wantonly killing civilians, and that they must agree to a cease-fire with people who have sworn to kill them. I wish I could say I cannot imagine how we got to this point in society, where a portion of our society would side with the very monsters that have killed both Israelis and Americans, because of a fear of violence, but the reason is all too clear.
The free world has been too tolerant of the non-free world. We have allowed them to be portrayed as victims, and to assume the moral high ground at the same time that they cut the heads off innocent people and film it for worldwide consumption. Okay, that is the nice way to put it. The honest way to put it is that we have lost our nerve. When a society of radicals can drag a dead American through the streets of their towns, and hang their bodies from a bridge as a collective finger flashed at America, and our response is “patience” we have lost not only our nerves, but our balls as well.
I get a sense from the older veteran friends of mine in this city that our problem is that we have it too good, and do not remember what was done on our behalf to make things this good. Have we forgotten that for every time we can leave our homes, go stand in line at our favorite restaurant, and NOT think about the possibility of someone bombing the place, which someone many years ago gave their very life for that freedom we enjoy?
I think the young people in line at Quatro Milpas and wonder how many of them would have volunteered to fly with along side Doolittle on his way to Tokyo, knowing they had not the gas to get home? Omaha Beach, anyone? I understand that these days, in Marine Corps boot camp, a recruit can call a “time out” if he is feeling too much stress. Is our State Dept. running the Marines now? This, I find disgusting!
But no more disgusting then those who seek a cease-fire in Lebanon this morning when civilians were killed after their building collapsed from the concussion of a bomb dropped near them that was targeting the site of where rockets were launched into Israel resulting in the deaths of 18 Israeli civilians. It is as though these Israeli deaths do not matter at all. Especially when you stop to consider that this conflict began with Hezbollah coming across the Israeli border, ambushing and killing 8 Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two more.
Cease-fire, my ass!
To every person who believes that you can reason with these animals, I must ask you where your mind went. It is the weakness of the free-world's NON-response that has allowed the terrorist threat to grow into a movement that threatens our very existence.
When a U.S. soldier can be dragged through the streets of Somalia and our response is to LEAVE, when 280 Marines can be bombed in their sleep and our response is to LEAVE, when after terrorists kill Spanish civilians on a train, and their nation's response is to elect capitulating socialists who order the immediate retreat of their soldiers from Iraq, and so on, and so on, what are the terrorists to think, but that the free world has become a pussy?
The fact that a majority of Americans think this nation needs AN EXCUSE for going after terrorism after 911 scares the hell out of me. It suggests that we as a nation will eventually fail to produce the men and women who every day, stand between freedom and tyranny.
Yesterday, San Diego had its Gay Pride Parade. Oh, the joy.. It was billed as the largest 'celebration' in the city’s history. THIS city. The very city where sailors came home to after fighting in Midway. The city that trains half of this nations Marines, hosts the USS Ronald Reagan, the USS Nimitz, the former Fightertown USA… our largest celebration is for the GAY PRIDE PARADE. Ponder that with me, will you?
We are at war.
I want Israel to continue, even escalate their attacks on Lebanon. I want them to ignore the media, ignore the pundits, and ignore even the weak among them who want to find a peaceful way out of this current conflict. History teaches us that until a bully is beaten, the bully keeps coming. The free world paid for our freedom in blood, and if blood is what it will take to keep it, then let’s just have at it now, shall we?
Let Iran and Syria attempt to aid Hezbollah. Let Israel attack them. Let it escalate until we are forced to fight at Israel's side. Then, can we for the last time, just kick some ass until it is over? Every generation must pay this price, as long as there are those who seek to force us to follow a dictatorial ideology. Radical Islam says, “Agree or die.” In response, we should stop asking them, if there is a middle ground to be reached. We should be saying, “Fine, but it is YOU that will die.”
Israel, I see you fighting not just for your freedoms, but also for the world's. I trust that if you continue, the free world will be forced to side with you, even if it means that a few of us die in the process. The time is now. It is time for THIS generation to prove itself worthy of those that came before us. It is time for us to say NO MORE to the terrorist threat, to find them and kill them.
Do not stop fighting, Israel. Make the free world help you put an end to this madness. In doing so, you might help us find the courage and moral convictions that made us free to begin with, so that one day, little Jewish children, and old lovers of Mexican food in America can go about our daily lives with the freedom that others died to give us.
Moshe Dayan: “You don't negotiate with terrorists, you kill them.”
TERRORISM THEN AND NOW
AMERICA’S EARLIEST TERRORISTS:
Lessons from America's First War with Islamic Terrorists
By Joshua E. London, author of Victory In Tripoli: How America's War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation (John Wiley & Sons, September 2005)
At the dawn of a new century, a newly elected United States president was forced to confront a grave threat to the nation — an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim terrorists. Worse still, these Islamic partisans operated under the protection and sponsorship of rogue Arab states ruled by ruthless and cunning dictators.
Sluggish in recognizing the full nature of the threat, America entered the war well after the enemy’s call to arms. Poorly planned and feebly executed, the American effort proceeded badly and at great expense — resulting in a hastily negotiated peace and an equally hasty declaration of victory.
As timely and familiar as these events may seem, they occurred more than two centuries ago. The president was Thomas Jefferson, and the terrorists were the Barbary pirates. Unfortunately, many of the easy lessons to be plucked from this experience have yet to be fully learned.
The Barbary states, modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, are collectively known to the Arab world as the Maghrib (“Land of Sunset”), denoting Islam’s territorial holdings west of Egypt. With the advance of Mohammed’s armies into the Christian Levant in the seventh century, the Mediterranean was slowly transformed into the backwater frontier of the battles between crescent and cross. Battles raged on both land and sea, and religious piracy flourished.
The Maghrib served as a staging ground for Muslim piracy throughout the Mediterranean, and even parts of the Atlantic. America’s struggle with the terror of Muslim piracy from the Barbary states began soon after the 13 colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776, and continued for roughly four decades, finally ending in 1815.
Although there is much in the history of America’s wars with the Barbary pirates that is of direct relevance to the current “war on terror,” one aspect seems particularly instructive to informing our understanding of contemporary Islamic terrorists. Very simply put, the Barbary pirates were committed, militant Muslims who meant to do exactly what they said.
Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.
These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
The candor of that Tripolitan ambassador is admirable in its way, but it certainly foreshadows the equally forthright declarations of, say, the Shiite Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the 1980s and the Sunni Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, not to mention the many pronouncements of their various minions, admirers, and followers. Note that America’s Barbary experience took place well before colonialism entered the lands of Islam, before there were any oil interests dragging the U.S. into the fray, and long before the founding of the state of Israel.
America became entangled in the Islamic world and was dragged into a war with the Barbary states simply because of the religious obligation within Islam to bring belief to those who do not share it. This is not something limited to “radical” or “fundamentalist” Muslims.
Which is not to say that such obligations lead inevitably to physical conflict, at least not in principle. After all peaceful proselytizing among various religious groups continues apace throughout the world, but within the teachings of Islam, and the history of Muslims, this is a well-established militant thread.
The Islamic basis for piracy in the Mediterranean was an old doctrine relating to the physical or armed jihad, or struggle.
To Muslims in the heyday of Barbary piracy, there were, at least in principle, only two forces at play in the world: the Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, or House of War. The House of Islam meant Muslim governance and the unrivaled authority of the sharia, Islam’s complex system of holy law. The House of War was simply everything that fell outside of the House of Islam — that area of the globe not under Muslim authority, where the infidel ruled. For Muslims, these two houses were perpetually at war — at least until mankind should finally embrace Allah and his teachings as revealed through his prophet, Mohammed.
The point of jihad is not to convert by force, but to remove the obstacles to the infidels’ conversion so that they shall either convert or become a dhimmi (a non-Muslim who accepts Islamic dominion) and pay the jizya, or poll tax. The goal is to bring all of the Dar al-Harb into the peace of the Dar al-Islam, and to eradicate unbelief. The Koran also promises rewards to those who fight in the jihad, plunder and glory in this world and the delights of paradise in the next.
Although the piratical activities of Barbary genuinely degenerated over the centuries from pure considerations of the glory of jihad to less grandiose visions of booty and state revenues, it is important to remember that the religious foundations of the institution of piracy remained central.
Even after it became commonplace for the pirate captains or their crew to be renegade Europeans, it was essential that these former Christians “turn Turk” and convert to Islam before they could be accorded the honor of engagement in al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea.
In fact, the peoples of Barbary continued to consider the pirates as holy warriors even after the Barbary rulers began to allow non-religious commitments to command their strategic use of piracy. The changes that the religious institution of piracy underwent were natural, if pathological. Just as the concept of jihad is invoked by Muslim terrorists today to legitimize suicide bombings of noncombatants for political gain, so too al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, served as the cornerstone of the Barbary states’ interaction with Christendom.
In times of conflict, America tends to focus on personalities over ideas or movements, trying to play the man, not the board — as if capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, for example, would instantly end the present conflict. But such thinking loses sight of the fact that ideas have consequences. If one believes that God commands something, this belief is not likely to dissipate just because the person who elucidated it has been silenced. Islam, as a faith, is as essential a feature of the terrorist threat today as it was of the Barbary piracy over two centuries ago.
The Barbary pirates were not a “radical” or “fundamentalist” sect that had twisted religious doctrine for power and politics, or that came to recast aspects of their faith out of some form of insanity. They were simply a North African warrior caste involved in an armed jihad — a mainstream Muslim doctrine. This is how the Muslims understood Barbary piracy and armed jihad at the time, and, indeed, how the physical jihad has been understood since Mohammed revealed it as the prophecy of Allah.
Obviously, and thankfully, not every Muslim is obligated, or even really inclined, to take up this jihad. Indeed, many Muslims are loath to personally embrace this physical struggle. But that does not mean they are all opposed to such a struggle any more than the choice of many Westerners not to join the police force or the armed services means they do not support those institutions.
Whether “insurgents” are fighting in Iraq or “rebels” and “militants” are skirmishing in Chechnya or Hamas “activists” are detonating themselves in Israel, Westerners seem unwilling to bring attention to the most salient feature of all these groups: They claim to be acting in the name of Islam.
It is very easy to chalk it all up to regional squabbles, economic depression, racism, or post-colonial nationalistic self-determinism. Such explanations undoubtedly enter into part of the equation — they are already part of the propaganda that clouds contemporary analysis. But as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams came to learn back in 1786, the situation becomes a lot clearer when you listen to the stated intentions and motivations of the terrorists and take them at face value.
THIS WAR IS FOR REAL
Muslims, terrorist and the USA - A different spin on Iraq war.
By Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired 7-12-05
Forwarded by Don & Beth Waterworth
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine, which includes WWII.
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979 - 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York attack 1988
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000
* New York World Trade Center 2001
* Pentagon 2001.
During the period from 1981 to 2001, there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the U.S. were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated.
There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons - including 7,000 Polish priests. (See [http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm ] - Mass extermination to Purify Aryan blood, Louis L. Snyder's Historical guide).
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the U.S., but kill all in the way — their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing — by their own pronouncements — killing all of us “infidels.” I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, we address the two major questions:
Can we lose this war?
What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.
However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by “imploding.” That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort.
If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling.
Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means.
Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.
We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the “humiliating” of some Muslim prisoners — not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them.
Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned — totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels!
That translates into ALL non-Muslims — not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone — let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next five years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.
Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them external by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the “peaceful Muslims”?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.
I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the politicians and media of our country and the free world!
Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our “leaders” in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
THOSE “POOR, INNOCENT” LEBANESE
By Irwin N. Graulich
Forwarded by SuzyQ
Irwin N. Graulich is a well known motivational speaker on morality, ethics, religion and politics. He is also President and CEO of a leading marketing, branding and communications company in New York City. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Let me get this straight. You allow one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world to set up shop throughout your country. You permit them to completely take over the entire southern third of Lebanon and you claim to have seen nothing.
You allow the terrorists to build sophisticated, fortified bunkers and you did not see any heavy equipment building them. You allow the Hezbollah terrorists to move into many of your towns and villages, including the complete takeover of one of the largest neighborhoods in Beirut, where they proceed to build numerous, complex command and control centers…and then you claim ignorance.
You allow Hezbollah to store weapons, bombs and rockets in your basements. You turn a blind's eye when they carry arms into your restaurants, stores and buildings, yet you call yourself an “innocent civilian.”
You watch the Hezbollah parades with hundreds of thousands of participants including children screaming, “Jihad. Death to Israel, Jews and Americans,” burning American and Israeli flags, while goose-stepping soldiers with Nazi-like salutes receive your cheers—and all of you “innocent civilians” did not see a thing even though you were captured on videotape. All this, while Koffi Annan and much of the UN insist that “we should not believe our lying eyes about the innocent civilians.”
There are giant posters of the rubenesque terrorist leader, Hasan Nasrallah, all over Lebanon with headlines declaring the imminent destruction of Israel. Yet you choose to elect this terrorist party to your government—and all of the so called “innocent Lebanese” do not know anything about anything.
Twenty thousand rockets and launchers are shipped into your country along with other military equipment by plane, truck and ship, and the government industrial complex knew absolutely nothing; and neither did all those “poor, innocent civilians” who are now crying.
So you allow the “Devil” into your homes and into your lives; you take the Devil's money, food and medicine; you sleep with the Devil… and get a serious evil disease. And then you blame the Jews, of course! Well, there is no sympathy for the devil… or his helpers!
The Lebanese “knowingly allowed (aka aided and abetted)” murderous terrorists to proliferate in their sovereign nation. Like spoiled teenagers, they now refuse to take any responsibility. Of course there are some truly innocent civilians, but there were hundreds of thousands of beautiful German babies and mothers in Dresden and Berlin who were blown to bits. If an attack emanates from your country, the entire country is responsible. That is how life works and it is sometimes unfair.
I hate when people lie to my face and expect me to believe their vile fabrications. Does the Muslim world really think that the vast majority of Americans are that foolish? Only the quislings at CNN like Larry King, Nick Robertson, Wolf Blitzer, et al, will fall for this Joseph Goebbels-style propaganda.
The confused, immoral left and their paper of record, The New York Times only see “innocent civilians throughout Lebanon.” Europe, that moral bastion which gave birth to Nazism, will look at photos of men, women and children in despair, without putting the image into its proper context. Yet countries like Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland, who could not decide whether to support Hitler or Churchill during WWII, can drum up the moral authority to criticize Israel today. And leave it to Vichy, France 2006 headed by Jaques “Petain” Chirac to condemn Israel's response.
Seeing television snippets of wounded or dead Lebanese with people sitting on the ground crying and calling them all “innocent civilians” is the same as looking at a photograph of the armpit of Christie Brinkley and saying, “Here is the photo of a supermodel. Isn't she beautiful?” The armpit picture is only a part of the story. When human beings see babies or mothers hurting, no matter what, we feel the pain. If we saw baby pictures of Charles Manson, we would want to cuddle him.
We cannot look at photos of so-called “innocent civilians” in a vacuum. It is important for all “moral, decent” human beings to realize that the compassion emotion is similar to the sex emotion. Often times, it interferes with truth, logic and morality.
Listen up all you “Innocent Lebanese along with your innocent, Hezbollah supporting government.” Do you want to know why your towns, villages and cities are smoldering? Do you want to know why 800,000 people are homeless and 600 are dead? Do you want to know why your infrastructure is devastated?
The answer is that the Jews are simply not going to pack up their little valises and walk into gas chambers again. The Jews will not be taken from their homes and marched into the Mediterranean Sea by Nazis or Hezbollah-Hamas-Syrian-Iranian, Nazi-like sympathizers. The Jews in Israel or anywhere else are just not going to allow themselves to be shipped away like you dream about every day.
Attention all radical Muslims throughout the entire world and Jacques Chirac. The Jews will not be walking into death camps or graves ever again, and if you dare try it, Qana, South Beirut, Tyre, Nabatiyeh, Bint Jbeil, Kounine, Beit Yahoun, Rashaya, Baalbek, Majdel Zoun, Ayt-a-Shab, etc. will all look a whole lot worse than Dresden and Berlin. And Tehran may become hotter than Hiroshima.
Attention Lebanon—your country is smoldering because Jews are sick and tired of being murdered. You keep pushing those pathetic, weak, Torah studying Jews by using terrorism and kidnapping soldiers, and all, yes all of Lebanon will be smoldering.
Listen very carefully enemies of Israel, because you are making a giant mistake. I urge any person that will be having dinner with Sayed Hassan Nesrallah - the big fat brave man hiding in his little rat hole while his fighters are being picked off like little olives on a tree - to make sure his life insurance is fully paid.
Mr. hero Nesrallah is just a pimp for Iran, sending out his Hezbollah terrorist hookers to “screw the Jews.” The amazing thing is that Iran is not an Arab country. They should not be involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. They do not border Israel, so there is no Iranian territorial dispute where they claim, like everyone else, that Israel occupies their land. Yet, Ahmadinejad's (pronounced—”a mad dog on Jihad”) hatred for Jews and Israel rivals that of Adolph Hitler.
It is no wonder that the Iranian president feels this way since Israel is supreme in virtually every area—technically, militarily, scientifically, culturally, morally and religiously. Each attempt by macho Muslim/Arab countries to destroy Israel has been met with a totally devastating, humiliating defeat. Like Saddam, the skinny, little Ahmadinejad (pronounced “a mad dog on Jihad”) aspires to be the big hero of the Muslim world.
What Ahmadinejad (pronounced “a mad dog on Jihad”) does not comprehend, is that Israel will not use a tongue depressor when they capture him and his associates.
The truth be told that should Iran dare make one wrong move directly on Israel, then Israel will simply “Wipe the Shiite out of them!”
TIME IS RUNNING OUT
DECEMBER 7, 1941 vs. SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
By Henry Mark Holzer
Forwarded by AirBurd
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, and from time-to-time since then, it has been said that the day was akin to the one about which President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke: December 7, 1941.
The comparison is apt—but not completely. Despite the similarities, the differences in what followed each of those days are profound and the aftermath of September 11, 2001, may well portend far worse consequences than did World War II for the United States of America.
The esteemed historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, in his The Oxford History of the American People, has written of December 7, 1941: “At the end of this sad and bloody day, 7 December 1941, the 'day that shall live in infamy,' as President Roosevelt said of it, 2403 American sailors, soldiers, marines, and civilians had been killed, and 1178 more wounded.”
In Hawaii, nearly 150 planes had been destroyed on the ground; at least six battleships had been sunk or rendered non-operational.
Soon, American air assets in Manila would be destroyed. The Japanese would roll over the Malay Peninsula and take Singapore. Guam and other islands in the Pacific would fall. Hong Kong would be taken. The fate of Bataan and Corregidor would be told by the Death March and hellish prison camps. And more. Much more.
Morrison, again, about December 8, 1941: “To millions of Americans, whether at breakfast in Hawaii, or reading the Sunday paper in the West, or sitting down to dinner in the East, this news of disaster after disaster, seemed fantastic, incredible. As the awful details poured in, hour after hour, incredulity turned to anger and an implacable determination to avenge these unprovoked and dastardly attacks. On 8 December, Congress with but one dissenting vote declared a state of war with Japan. President Roosevelt, in his war message declared, 'Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization'.”
Yes, on December 7th and September 11th there were sneak attacks. Yes, each day was one of infamy. Yes, there were considerable losses of American (and other) lives. Yes, substantial symbols of American power—the Pacific Fleet, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—were destroyed. Yes, Americans fought back at Pearl Harbor and on United 93. Yes, the news on those days was “fantastic, incredible.”
And yes, then, as now, “Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization.” And yes, on December 8th and September 12th there was among our people “an implacable determination to avenge these unprovoked and dastardly attacks.”
But with these comparisons, the picture changes.
In 1941, and for nearly four year after, we saw full mobilization of our great nation’s resources: military, economic, social, spiritual, political. Every sector of our society was engaged.
Men and women volunteered for the armed services. Women went into factories. Rationing was imposed. Religious leaders prayed, and went into combat with their flocks. Politicians joined hands, giving FDR what he needed to fight ruthless enemies.
Civilians willingly endured shortages and blackouts. Kids (like me) collected newspapers, tin cans, used fat and grease—all for the war effort. The radio, newspapers, and magazines supported the war effort, and exercised disciplined self-restraint about what they published. Celebrities, who hadn’t enlisted, sold War Bonds and entertained the troops.
Images kept patriotic spirits high: Joe Rosenthal’s photo of the Iwo Jima flag raising; MacArthur wading ashore in the Philippines; repatriation of emaciated POWs from Japanese prison camps; Patton, with his pearl-handle revolvers; the London blitz; the liberation of Paris. VE-Day. Then, VJ-Day and Times Square overflowing with joy.
And the man-in-the-street, and his wife, and his children, and all other Americans, knew that we were fighting Germany and Japan (and Italy) because, as FDR said, they posed a grave threat to “life, liberty and civilization”… as do the radical Islamists who on 9/11 showed us a preview of their nihilism-driven corrupt religion’s vision for mankind, and who, before and since, have maimed and murder ed thousands of innocent men, women, and children throughout the world.
But after President Bush’s rousing post – 9/11 speech to Congress and the American people, after flags flew everywhere for a few months, after passage of some useful but inadequate legislation, do we see within our
country Morrison’s “implacable determination to avenge these unprovoked and dastardly attacks”? Sadly, we do not.
Indeed, we see the opposite.
We see a narrow Supreme Court majority, infatuated with the romance of international law at the expense of American sovereignty, giving due process rights to terrorists, ignoring established precedent to nullify military tribunals, and treating irregular enemy combatants as if they were mere burglars to be dealt with by our domestic criminal law system.
We see international busybody organizations inspecting our detainee facility at Guantanamo, and solemnly pronouncing a verdict on our treatment of Islamic murderers who would make American citizens their next victims.
We see those murderers coddled—uninterrupted sleep, prayer time, outside recreation, nutritious food, health care—by a soft administration bent on mollifying these international busybodies and their domestic crybaby cousins.
We see America-hating organizations such as the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Center for Constitutional Rights enlisting thousands of lawyers whose task is to monkey wrench the terrorist ad judicatory system, as if they were representing O.J. Simpson in a Los Angeles courtroom.
We see leading newspapers disclosing top secret defense information—surveillance, money tracing, secret interrogation facilities—not only with impunity, but to the cheers of America’s left and those in the world who would destroy us.
We see a mostly partisan Democrat Party—in Congress and at the National Committee—playing politics with laws essential to our national security.
We see a weakened Republican president proffering legislation for military tribunals that provides for terrorists process at once unnecessary and dangerous, only to be trumped by the likes of grandstanding Republican Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham, who, not content to provide Islamic murderers with all the due process enjoyed by domestic criminal defendants, want to provide them, as well, with classified information about “sources and methods.” We see this senatorial quartet also determined to prohibit the time-tested “good cop/bad cop” technique of interrogation, sleep deprivation, loud music, dietary manipulations— apparently believing that our military and CIA are dealing with some Chicago street gang, not savages out to destroy us and our way of life.
We see public officials acquiescing to the demands of homegrown Muslim organizations, in an effort not to offend—blinding themselves to that religion’s core belief in jihad, martyrdom, and its ultimate triumph.
We see in America, according to a nationwide Scripps Survey Research poll, that more than one-third of our countrymen suspect the government “assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” Worse, if that be possible, is that sixteen percent of those polled attribute collapse of the World Trade Center towers not to the jet planes hijacked by Islamic terrorists, but to agents of George W. Bush who somehow, clandestinely, blew up the buildings.
We see in our colleges and universities an inbred corps of fanatic intellectuals whose life’s purpose is to brainwash the young minds entrusted to their care into believing that the enlightenment, Western values, and the political philosophy that created and sustained our nation are all malevolent, and that Islam, the religion of nihilism and murder, is mankind’s true aspiration.
We, who at the Battle of the Bulge shot captured German troops wearing American uniforms and on Guadalcanal incinerated Japanese defenders with flame throwers, we who firebombed Dresden and Tokyo, we who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, now send Senators to Washington who fight the president over “harsh” interrogation of terrorists who often have information that can save American lives.
We see the recruitment of radical Islamists in our prisons, aided and abetted by radical Islamic clergy— paid for by the American taxpayer.
We see politicians willing to turn over America’s national security, and perhaps the ultimate survival of our civilization, to unelected judges, responsible to no one, many who have been cloistered for so long that they lack an adequate understanding of the real world.
We see the much heralded publication of the Army Field Manual, providing Geneva Conventions protection barring “outrages against personal dignity” such as “hooding,” forced nudity, and duct-taping eyes, to Islamic terrorists who behead, dismember, and disembowel captured Americans.
We see, in short, an utter, indeed a frightening, lack of understanding of the principles that animated our creation as the freest most successful nation ever to exist on this earth, principles that carried us through revolution, civil war, world wars, and a cold war.
We see that too many Americans have become ignorant and complacent, and thus broken the faith with those who fought at Yorktown, died at Gettysburg, survived the trenches, landed at Normandy, froze at Chosin and were imprisoned in Hanoi.
We see our country in thrall to pernicious ideas that have sucked from us the understanding of what we face and the will to face it. And time is running out.
Unless America wakes up fast—parents, clergy, intellectuals, workers, educators, veterans, celebrities, students—one day, perhaps sooner than later, we will look up and no longer see Ronald Reagan ’s “shining city on a hill.”
We will see a Mosque.
Henry Mark Holzer, professor emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, can be contacted through his website, www.henrymarkholzer.com.
TO ALL AMERICAN MUSLIMS
YOU WORRY ME
By American Airlines Captain John Maniscalco
Forwarded by Col. Joe Burdick USAF (Ret)
“I've been trying to say this since 9-11 but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me. I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.
“On September 11, nineteen Arab-Muslims hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children’s mothers.
“The Palestinians Celebrated, The Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world. So I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that have destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell them the difference between you and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.
“How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim-Americans and the Arab/Muslims in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of our constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter these same good neighbors and children? The events of September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with all of its religions, with all of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me.
“I want to know, I demand to know, and I have a right to know whether or not you love America . Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation…that He will protect and prosper it? Or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your “Jihads”? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America ? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.
“Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America. Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent because I worry about who you regard as innocent. No more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not interested in any more sympathy. I am only interested in action.
“What will you do for America – our great country – at this time of crisis, at this time of war?
“I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the American flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting “Allah Bless America ” I want to see young Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time, and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole. The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize in Muslim communities. You know them. You know who they are.
Hand them over to us now!
“But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection against reprisals.
“The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that have appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing “leaders” like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat. If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true when your “leaders” are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance.
“It matters little how good Islam >should be if large numbers of the world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. A form that has been demonstrated to us over and over again. A form whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.
“Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because our women proudly show their faces in public rather than cover up like a shameful whore? Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because we drink wine with dinner, or celebrate Christmas? Do you and you fellow Muslims hate us because we have befriended Israel, the only friendly and civilized society in the Muslim/Arab area, that thinks and acts like most Americans.
“And if you and your fellow Muslims hate us, then why in the world are you even here? Are you here to take our money? Are you here to undermine our peace and stability? Are you here to destroy us? If so, I want you to leave. I want you to go back to your desert sandpit where women are treated like rats and dogs. I want you to take your religion, your friends, and your family back to your Islamic extremists, and stay there! We will never give in to your influence, your retarded mentality, or your twisted, violent, intolerant religion.
“We will never allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us: Our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Arab/ Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family. I am pleading with you to let me know.
“I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand!
“Until then, you worry me.”
UNDERSTANDING THE ENEMY
This is a bit long, but extremely important. Every American should read it all the way through to better understand why we must relentlessly persevere against the unfolding world-wide theocratic totalitarianism.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE MIDDLE EAST LIVING ROOM
By R. James Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence
Forwarded by BGen Bob Clements USAF (Ret)
Early in November, hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee examined hate literature being distributed in American mosques. This material had been translated and published earlier this year by Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom. (I was chairman of Freedom House at the time and wrote the book's foreword.) The hearings examined these Saudi publications in the context of assessing Chairman Arlen Specter's proposed Saudi Arabia Accountability Act. In addition to the material presented at the hearings, the underlying role of Saudi Arabia's state religion, generally referred to in the West as Wahhabism, deserves expanded attention for a variety of reasons.
Recently President Bush addressed a number of the ideological aspects of this long war in which we are now engaged. As he has put it now on two occasions, Islamofascism is one plausible characterization of our enemy. Although this is a major step forward beyond designating “terror” as the enemy (we're certainly at war with more than a tactic, albeit a terrible one) there was still a major element missing in his presentation. The elephant in the Middle East living room is Wahhabism. Over the long run, this movement is in many ways the most dangerous of the ideological enemies we face.
Within Sunni Islam, along with several more moderate schools, there are two varieties of theocratic totalitarianism. Both of these are Salafists, believing that only a literal version of the model of rule implemented in the seventh century in Islam has ultimate legitimacy. Both have the objective of rule by a unified mosque and state; for some this theocracy is personified by the caliph. Different individuals in these movements emphasize different aspects, but generally the common objective is to unify first the Arab world under theocratic rule, then the Muslim world, then those regions that were once Muslim (e.g. Spain), then the rest of the world.
Such totalitarian visions seem crazy to most of us; we thus tend to underestimate their potency. Yet the Salafists' theocratic totalitarian dream has some features in common with the secular totalitarian dreams of the twentieth century, e.g., the Nazis' Thousand Year Reich, or the Communists' World Communism. The latter two movements produced tens of millions of deaths in the 20th century in part because, at least in their early stages, they engendered “fire in the minds of men” in Germany, Russia, and China and were able to establish national bases. Salafists had such a national base for the better part of a decade in Afghanistan and have had one controlling the Arabian Peninsula for some eight decades. They haven't attained the Nazis' and Communists' death totals yet, but this is only due to lack of power, not to less murderous or less totalitarian objectives.
Salafists of both jihadist and loyalist stripe, e.g. both al Qaeda and the Wahhabis, share basic views on all points but one. Both exhibit fanatical hatred of Shiite Muslims, Sufi Muslims, Jews, Christians, and democracy, and both brutally suppress women. They differ only on whether it is appropriate to carry out jihadist attacks against any enemy near or far now - i.e. to murder Iraqi Shiite children getting candy, people working in the World Trade Center, etc. - or whether to subordinate such efforts for the time being to the political needs of a particular state, i.e. Saudi Arabia.
The relationship between the Salafist jihadists such as al Qaeda and Salafist loyalists such as the Wahhabis is thus loosely analogous to that between the Trotskyites and the Stalinists of the 1930's. Trotskyites, like al Qaeda, believed it was justified to use violence anywhere while Stalinists, like the Wahhabis, showed primary allegiance to protecting “socialism in one country”, i.e. the U.S.S.R. The fact that this difference was only a question of tactics didn't prevent the Trotskyites and Stalinists from being the most bitter of enemies - Trotsky died in 1940 with a Stalinist axe in his skull.
The “IslamoNazi” Threat Similarity. al Qaeda launches attacks in Saudi Arabia and the Saudis work with us to capture and kill al Qaeda members who threaten them. In this sense both Saudi government officials and probably even Wahhabi clerics are willing to “cooperate with the U.S. on counter-terrorism.” But this cooperation does not negate the fact that al Qaeda and the Wahhabis share essentially the same underlying totalitarian theocratic ideology. It is this common Salafist ideology that the Wahhabis have been spreading widely - financed by $3-4 billion/year from the Saudi government and wealthy individuals in the Middle East over the last quarter century - to the madrassas of Pakistan, the textbooks of Turkish children in Germany, and the mosques of Europe and the U.S. Alex Alexiev, senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, testified before Congress on June 26, 2003, that this is approximately three-four times what the Soviets were spending on external propaganda and similar “active measures” at the peak of Moscow's power in the 1970s.
This underlying Salafist ideology being spread by the Wahhabis is fanatical and murderous, indeed explicitly genocidal. (The president's “Islamofascist” term is thus perhaps understated - the Italian fascists were horrible, but not genocidal. “IslamoNazi” would be more accurate.)
For example, the BBC reported on July 18 of this year that a publication given to foreign workers in Saudi Arabia by the Islamic cultural center, which falls under the authority of the ministry of Islamic affairs, advocates the killing of “refusers” (Shia). The imam of Al-Haram in Mecca, (Islam's most holy mosque), Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, was barred from Canada last year after the translation of his sermons calling Jews “the scum of the earth” and “monkeys and pigs” who should be “annihilated.” Materials distributed by the Saudi government to the Al-Farouq Masjid mosque in Brooklyn call for the killing of homosexuals and converts from Islam to another religion.
Ideas Have Consequences. The direct consequences of such murderous teachings extend to the war in Iraq. In November of 2004, 26 Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia published a call for jihad against the U.S. in Iraq. Because of the high religious status of the clerics within Saudi Arabia, the exhortation was widely interpreted as a fatwa, a religious ruling. Several Saudi suicide bombers and other terrorists captured in Iraq have indicated that it was this fatwa that had turned them to terrorism. Said one: “I hadn't thought of coming to Iraq, but I had fatwas . . . I read the communiqué of the 26 clerics … .”
During the battle for Fallujah in 2004 Saudi Sheikh Abd Al-Muhsin Al-Abikan said to the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, “What is happening in Falluja is the result of such fatwas … [The resistance] is bringing about tragedy and destruction for Iraq, Falluja, and their residents.”
Nasser Sulayman al-Amer, one of the 26 signers of the call for jihad, admitted recently at a press conference in Kuwait that he had met with Iraqis on this matter.
On November 13 of this year the Iraqi national-security adviser, Rubaie said: “Most of those who blow themselves up in Iraq are Saudi nationals.”
Lost in Translation. Following the controversy over the 26 clerics' edict the Saudi government retracted it, in a sense. But the only two Saudi officials who released the retraction publicly were two Saudi ambassadors, those to the U.S. and the U.K. And the retractions were issued only in English.
Overbalancing such “retractions” of Wahhabi statements is the fact that Saudi education is turning toward, not away from, Wahhabi influence. In February of 2005 a secularist reformer, Muhammad Ahmad al-Rashid, headed the Saudi Education Ministry. As he was beginning to respond to internal criticism of curricula that incited hatred of non-Muslims and non-Wahhabi Muslims, he was replaced by Abdullah bin Saleh al-Obaid, a hard-core Wahhabi. Controlling 27 percent of the national budget, al-Obaid will have a substantial effect on the views of the next generation of Saudis.
His views are illuminated by aspects of his background. From 1995 to 2002, al-Obaid headed the Muslim World League (MWL). According to the U.S. Treasury the MWL's Peshawar office was led by Wael Jalaidan, “one of the founders of al Qaeda.” Moreover, the main arm of the MWL is the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). The Egyptian magazine, Rose al-Youssef, describes the IIRO as “firmly entrenched with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization.” In March 2002 the U.S. headquarters representing both organizations was raided and closed by federal authorities. One of the officers of the closed branch in Herndon, Virginia, was al-Obaid. The Wall Street Journal describes him as “an official enmeshed in a terror financing controversy.”
Thinly Veiled Totalitarianism Wahhabi ideology is also totalitarian to a unique degree in its repression of women. In 2002 the world press carried stories of an extreme example: Religious police in Saudi Arabia forced some young girls fleeing a burning school back inside to their deaths because they were not properly veiled. This is a fanaticism that knows no bounds.
Words and beliefs have consequences, and totalitarians are often remarkably clear about what they will do once they have enough power. Many brushed aside Mein Kampf when it was first written but it turned out to be an excellent guide to the Nazis' behavior once they had the power to implement it. We ignore the Wahhabis' teaching of Salafist fanaticism at our peril.
The Struggle for Islam There are two important points we must understand in dealing with this ideology and its teachings.
First of all, the rest of us Christians, Jews, other Muslims, followers of other religions, non-believers are under absolutely no obligation to accept the Wahhabis' and their apologists' claims that they represent “true Islam.” This is equivalent to the claims of Torquemada in the 16th century to represent “true Christianity.” He tortured and persecuted Jews, Muslims, and dissident Christians, burned many at the stake, and stole their property. We are under no obligation to take Torquemada's word that he represented “true Christianity” and would be under no obligation to take the word of any successor should one arise. By the same token, we are under no obligation to accept the Wahhabis' claim to represent the great and just religion of Islam.
Second, it is difficult for Americans to bring themselves to draw distinctions among those who claim they are following the requirements of their religion. We generally do not want to quarrel with others' religious beliefs even if they seem very strange to us. But we must realize that murderous totalitarianism that claims religious sanction is different. We have defeated four major totalitarian movements in the last six and a half decades: German Nazism, Italian Fascism, Japanese Imperialism, and Soviet Communism. Only Japanese Imperialism had a major religious element. Communism however was secular, so our current generation of leaders has little experience with a totalitarian ideology that seeks to hide behind one of the world's great religions the way Torquemada cloaked his murderousness in claims to represent Christianity. This makes it difficult for most Americans to understand IslamoNazism. We tend to regard each person's religious beliefs as a private matter. But we must learn to make an exception for theocratic totalitarianism masquerading as religion.
During the Cold War we had little difficulty in distinguishing between, say, the Khmer Rouge and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, although both called themselves “Socialists.” But it is harder for us to bring ourselves to distinguish between those who follow the Wahhabi party line on the one hand and, on the other, brave and decent individuals such the American Sufi leader Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, who has been warning Americans of the danger of Islamist terror since well before 9/11. We must get over this reluctance to challenge the perpetrators of and apologists for theocratic totalitarianism.
Cold War Lessons. Does taking on Wahhabism and its supporters mean that we must stand opposed to all cooperation with the government of Saudi Arabia, or attempt to change the Saudi regime in short order? No. The needs of statecraft must also be considered. We fought the Communist ideology in different ways from 1917 through the Cold War. But while we were fighting it, for nearly four years during World War II we were close allies of the Soviets, because we needed them with us against Hitler. Over the years we had commercial relations with them (they bought our wheat and Pepsis, we bought their oil) and some of us spent years negotiating arms-control agreements with them, sometimes to positive effect. In short, we worked as the need arose over the years with the Soviet state, but we generally kept up our ideological struggle against Communism, especially after 1947.
We need to keep this history in mind when dealing with the government of Saudi Arabia. The royal family has some reformers in it, including, to a mild degree, King Abdullah, with whom we may make some common cause. We need to work with the Saudi government on reform and, of course, on issues related to oil. But just as we took steps in the 1980s to try to limit Europe's dependence on Soviet natural-gas supplies we would be well advised today to reduce our own oil dependency. And we must never forget the underlying totalitarian ideology of the Saudi state.
How might we undertake to fight this Wahhabi ideology? Again, we should recall some Cold War lessons. By the 1950s, after a congressional attempt to outlaw Communism was struck down by the Supreme Court, and after Joseph McCarthy's attempt to spread guilt by association was defeated, we hit upon several ways to deal with our domestic Communists. We made them register. We infiltrated them with large numbers of FBI agents. We essentially made their lives miserable. It was legal for them and their front groups to exist indeed they perennially ran Gus Hall for President and they even recruited some spies for the Soviets. But despite their best efforts they were not a serious force in American life, nor did they succeed in undermining our ability to fight the Cold War. At the same time we made common cause with Democratic socialists around the world, just as we must make common cause today with the hundreds of millions of decent Muslims with whom we have no quarrel.
We should have a frank national discussion about how we may learn from this history and deal with Sunni theocratic totalitarianism so that we may help it join its secular cousins, Nazism and Communism (and its predecessor totalitarian religious movements such as Torquemada's Inquisition) where they all rightly belong: on the ash-heap of history.
VIDEO ON AL JAZEERA
From Ed Lawton, who wrote:
“I strongly recommend you view this short video. For those of you on dial up, it will take time to load. Safe to open, very interesting to listen to. Sad to say, I haven't heard anyone speak in this manner in the USA…. but I am sure that most Muslims in America are sufficiently comfortable not to engage in the craziness ongoing in other nations.”
Unless you speak this language, you may want to turn the volume low to better concentrate on the English subtitles.
CLICK HERE [http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null ].
WAKE UP CALL
From Harold Riley
I hope you will click on the link below… and play it all the way through to its conclusion.
Sadly, too many Americans are in denial of reality and have no inkling of the peril our nation faces.
When the presentation stops, click on the link just below it to enter WHERE PATRIOTS DARE. It is filled with information about this terrible enemy with millions worldwide who support its cause.
To start, turn up the volume and click here. [http://www.usawakeup.org/ ]
WE COULD USE JFK’S CLARITY
By Charles Krauthammer, Syndicated columnist, October 16, 2006
Forwarded by YNCS Don Harribine, USN (Ret)
”It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.” - President John F. Kennedy, 1962
WASHINGTON — Now that's deterrence. Kennedy was pledging that if any nuke were launched from Cuba, the United States would not even bother with Cuba but go directly to the source and bring the apocalypse to Russia with a massive nuclear attack. The remarkable thing about this kind of threat is that in 1962 it was very credible. Indeed, its credibility kept the peace throughout a half-century of Cold War.
Deterrence is what you do when there is no way to disarm your enemy. You cannot deprive him of his weapons, but you can keep him from using them. We long ago reached that stage with North Korea. Everyone has tried to figure out how to disarm North Korea. It will not happen. Kim Jong Il is not going to give up his nukes. The only way to disarm the regime is to destroy it. China could do that with sanctions, but will not. The United States could do that with a second Korean war, but will not, either.
So we are back to deterrence. Hence the familiar echoes of the Cuban missile crisis with North Korea's rude entry into the nuclear club. The U.S. had to immediately put down markers for deterrence. President Bush put down two. One marker, preventing a direct attack on our allies in the region, was straightforward, if bland: “I reaffirmed to our allies in the region, including South Korea and Japan,” the president said in a nationally televised statement, “that the United States will meet the full range of our deterrent and security commitments.”
It is understood by all that the decades-old American nuclear umbrella in the Pacific Rim commits us to attacking North Korea were it to attack our allies first. Gruesome stuff, but run-of-the-mill in the nuclear age. The hard part is the second marker Bush tried to put down: proliferation deterrence. We are in a new era far more complicated than Kennedy's because his great crisis occurred before the age of terrorism.
The world of 1962 was still technologically and ideologically primitive: Miniaturized nuclear weaponry had not yet been invented, nor had modern international terrorism. Yasser Arafat and the PLO gave the world that gift half a decade later with their perfection of the political airline hijacking. Terrorism has since grown in popularity, ambition and menace. Its practitioners are in the market for nuclear weapons.
North Korea has little else to sell. Hence Bush's attempt to codify a second form of deterrence: “The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such action.” A good first draft, but it could use some Kennedyesque clarity.
The phrase “fully accountable” does not exactly instill fear, as it has been used promiscuously by several administrations in warnings to both terrorists and rogue states - after which we did absolutely nothing. A better formulation would be the following: Given the fact that there is no other nuclear power so recklessly in violation of its nuclear obligations, it shall be the policy of this nation to regard any detonation of a nuclear explosive on the United States or its allies as an attack by North Korea on the United States requiring a full retaliatory response upon North Korea.
This is how you keep Kim Jong Il from proliferating. Make him understand that his survival would be hostage to the actions of whatever terror group he sold his weapons to. Any terrorist detonation would be assumed to have his address on it. The United States would then return postage. Automaticity of this kind concentrates the mind. This policy has a hitch, however.
It only works in a world where there is but a single rogue nuclear state. Once that club expands to two, the policy evaporates because a nuclear terror attack would no longer have a single automatic return address. Which is another reason why keeping Iran from going nuclear is so important. With North Korea there is no going back.
But Iran is not there yet. One rogue country is tolerable because it can be held accountable. Two rogue countries guarantee undeterrable and therefore inevitable nuclear terrorism.
Charles Krauthammer's column appears Monday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: email@example.com.
WHAT THE ARAB WORLD THINKS
By Brigitte Gabriel
Forwarded by BG Bob Clements, USAF (Ret)
Brigitte Gabriel is a native of the Arab world and a former news anchor of World News for Middle East Television. She is now a contributing editor of Family Security Matters [http://www.FamilySecurityMatters.com ] and founder of American Congress for Truth [http://www.AmericanCongressforTruth.com ]. During her childhood, radical Islamists destroyed Gabriel's home because she was a Christian. She spent 2-1/2 months in the hospital and then lived under ground for seven years with no electricity and little food. Bridgitt eventually became a news anchor, and later moved to the U.S. where she's a true American success story - own business, husband, two kids, etc.
Torture is accepted and even expected in the Arab world. Yes, I know what you're thinking - that's not politically correct in most mainstream media. And you know some nice Arabs who have immigrated to America. But it's the truth in the Arab world. Might makes right. Real men don't eat quiche. They prove their manhood by the way they treat their enemy. After all it's what Muhammad did to the unbelievers - Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians in the Quoran - the 'holy book' allegedly mishandled in Guantanamo prison.
Arab Muslim men gain honor by shaming, belittling, abusing and torturing their enemy in the most horrific ways. Just look at how the Palestinians treat so-called collaborators by disemboweling them and hanging them upside down in Manger Square in Bethlehem. Look at the terrorist torture chambers that the coalition forces recently uncovered in Iraq. When people refer to the prisons of Saddam Hussein and his regime they think he is the extreme exception. Not! The truth is his torture tactics are quite the norm in the Arab world.
If you want to see torture that is beyond what any Westerner can ever imagine please go to IMPALEMENT [http://www.masada2000.org/impalement.asx ]. Yes, you read it right, impalement. You'll get a glimpse of what the Arabs do to their own people.
As someone who came from the Arab world and knows how they think, it frustrates me to see self-appointed righteous minded politicians and media pundits - oblivious to Arabic culture and thinking - criticizing America's actions at Guantanamo. These are a bunch of al Qaeda jihadists who were captured while bent on killing us - the kaffirs or unbelievers. They laugh watching our government bend over backwards, forwards and sideways trying to appease the critics. The more we stumble over ourselves questioning our goals and tactics, the more they think we are weak and easy to defeat.
They smirk because they believe that Americans have demonstrated how stupid and weak they are by caving in to stories about maltreatment of Guantanamo detainees. They are watching our critics in this country and counting on them to embolden the radical Islamic cause and weaken our resolve.
Actually, Gitmo is a joke as far as the Arabs are concerned. Prison? You call that a prison? Let me tell you what some of the prisoners call Guantanamo, “Al muntazah al-dini lilmujaheden al Muslimin,” The Religious Resort for Islamic Militants. They are given three halal meals a day in accordance to their religious dictates. How many kosher prisons are there in the Arabic world? None. Jews captured in the Arab world are butchered like those obscene pictures taken in Ramallah during the frenzied slaughter of two Israeli reservists who got lost. Remember the Palestinian man holding his red, Jewish blood dripping hands, high above his head in victory? Remember Nick Berg's head being held high also?
Most of these detainees never had three meals a day in their entire life. They are gaining weight, and are living in what they refer to in Arabic as “Al-Jannah,” paradise. They have radio, television, soccer games, air-conditioning, clean clothes, and “servants” - meaning American GIs who wait on them hand and foot. They have Islamic chaplains and are handed Qu'rans, the social hate guide against Infidels, by people so concerned as not to offend that they wear latex gloves and carry the book with two hands.
Many Muslims in the Middle East would gladly give up their poverty, dictatorial governments, corrupt leaders and social bondage to enjoy the relative luxuries Guantanamo offers. They have free medical care - better than millions of uninsured Americans and our military men and women serving on the jihadists' battlefield. Some of them who couldn't afford to see an optometrist now have glasses and can see and read their Qu'ran. Others who never had the opportunity to see a dentist now have a free dental plan. It has become such a joke; we even stop interrogations to let them take prayer breaks demanded by their religion.
As an Arab, I can tell you that Illinois Democratic Senator Richard Durbin is aiding and abetting the goals and strategy of Islamic jihadists who have declared war on the United States.
Where was Durbin's comparison to the Nazis when we found the torture chambers in Iraq?
Where was Durbin's comparison to Soviet gulags when we found the hundreds of thousands of bodies in Saddam's mass graves?
Where was Durbin's head when he compared prisoners captured on the field of battle to the internment of Japanese American civilians during WWII? OK, apologize to unarmed citizens, not fighters with weapons in their hands.
Where was Durbin when he compared Gitmo and Abu Ghraib to the industry of death that murdered 6 million Jewish men, women and children during WWII?
If anything, his heart and mind were in the jihadists terrorists' camp.
If you see what story is being downloaded and shared by viewers of the al Jazeera web site you will find the story on Durbin's comments the winner. If I were an Islamic terrorist I would be thanking Durbin and forwarding his views to all my fellow fanatics. His reckless comments fuel the fanatic frenzied jihadists, motivating them to blow themselves up in the midst of innocent civilians, savagely cut the heads of helpless hostages and devote themselves to killing the infidel who could be your neighbor stationed in Iraq. Just like the Quran says they should.
Dick Durbin was an unwitting champion of Islamic radical fundamentalists. His comments should be known from this day forward as a “Durbinization” of the facts. To demonize something grossly out of proportion to what the enemy is doing is to Durbinize. Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have been Durbinized and the Arab world loved it. They laughed at Durbin because he was supporting their belief in the destruction of our country and civilization.
The shame is Durbin didn't have a clue as to what he'd done. As far as he was concerned, he did the right thing for the Islamic radical detainees living high on the proverbial hog in Gitmo. What he really did was make them laugh. Laugh at us for being fools and not real men. Now it's time to see if the voters in Illinois and his fellow members of Congress are men and women enough to tell the Moslem world Durbin isn't our real man.