On Deterrence and Axiology of War Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » 1st September - On Deterrence of War - what's going on with the world? » On Deterrence and Axiology of War « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Humancafe
Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 12:53 am:   

1st September, 2007 - On Deterrence of War.

On deterrence of war, prospects for world peace, and future of our human destiny.

cave.gifBhimbetka1.jpg


First order: We are reopening Humancafe forums closed for maintenance June 1st, on this day September 1st, 2007.

First order of the day: UN-BANNED - Ban lifted on Mohideen Ibramsha.

As the first order of the day, we lift the BANNED order imposed earlier for Mr. Ibramsha's refusal to answer a direct question on the 'separation of church and state'. This was no reflection in any negative way on Mr. Ibramsha's character, nor on his private beliefs of his religion, but on his posts politicizing the faith through the use of dogma, which is anti-freedom. All ideas are welcome on Humancafe forums, within reason, but not dogma which is outside reason.

Dogma is axiomatically against reason, for it means of necessity "thou shalt not think". And that is explicitly against what Humancafe forums stand for. We are dedicated to reason, not opposed to it. The freedom to think, to explore, to question, is exactly what we do here. Anyone who finds this objectionable is outside reason, and thus is free to disagree, but not to use dogma in doing so, because restriction on the right to think is inherently coercive. It is that freedom to think that defines for us our free will.

Dr. Mohideen Ibramsha is most welcome to continue his discourse, if he chooses to do so. His contributions in the past had been valuable to a better understanding of his mind, and culture, as well as his beliefs, to which I believe he is sincere. Also, in many ways, I consider him a friend. Of course, he as we maintain our right to agree, or to disagree, as we see fit to further our argument, within reason.

Second order: These past three months were a time for reflection. What greatest issues face our world today? Health, environmental, overpopulation, morality confusions, human freedoms, economic well being, and regional conflicts. This last further breaks down into violations of human rights, coercions which then lead to unproductive and irrational human behaviors, which destabilizes moral behaviors, which intensifies conflicts due to overpopulation, misutilized natural resources, making us increasingly unhealthy and emotionally or mentally disturbed. It all ties together, from global warming to lack of fresh water, not from nature's caprices but from human actions. When human beings learn to work together in mutual respect reciprocated without coercions, things work, and nature works with us. Very crowded nations like Japan work, because their cultures, albeit imperfectly, have managed to reduce human coercions. Japan's legendary politeness of society, and large populations constrained by limited land is not a serious obstacle to social success. Small island states have that disadvantage, like England or Malta, in that they cannot expand their populations into larger areas, unlike the Americas or Africa, or Russia, where vast underutilized lands avail, so they must work it out. But the crux of the matter, what drives our human conflicts, is coercions. And the ultimate manifestation of these coercions is war, whether regional or world wide. Human conflicts which end in war are not irreversible. We can stop war, or at least deter it sufficiently to where in time it will increasingly be seen as an anachronism of human behavior. Killing other human beings is something we must evolve out of. I think it is doable, hence the purpose of this discussion. How can we do this? Let us explore it, turn it over in our minds, and state as best we can conditions where war can be made extinct on our planet.

The last great world war, WW II, was fought with such horrific consequences for civilian populations that modern thinking has concluded that such wars must not be fought again. All that can be done to prevent such wars, such as rise of militaristic Fascist states, or Communist states, must be checked early in their formation before they become lethal. Consequence of this thinking led to the creation of the United Nations, the European Union, and a pan-global awareness that such mass killings of human beings are not longer acceptable. Yet, the war to stop Hitler's Nazi ambitions, or Japan's imperialistic ambitions, both cruel in their treatments of conquered peoples, were wars that had to be fought. We had no leisure to discuss our human conditions with tyrannical powers that would coerce their captive nations into submission by force. There are times where our freedoms are so at risk that war must be fought, or else we condemn ourselves and future generations to be bowed in submission on bended knee, not upright as our nature demands of us, our minds and souls demand, that we stand upright as free human beings. The Cold War with the Communist Soviet states was won without major military conflicts. So it can be done, that war is avoided even when faced with overwhelming odds that missiles and atomic warheads could be launched at any moment. This was dubbed MAD, or 'mutually assured destruction', where neither side would have enough left over after such war to make victory desirable. If the reciprocity of war is so horrific that it deters us from having it, then why not revers that? How about if we have reciprocity of human agreements and mutual respect instead? Is this not more desirable than mutually reciprocal destruction? And yet, how can this be assured without losing that same reciprocity of freedom, and peace? If we honor the enemies of freedom with weakness before them, in seeking dialogue for peace, are we not exposing our soft underbelly to their coercions? This is the dilemma, and how can we overcome this to make the odds much more in favor of dissuading the enemy from attack on our freedoms? Frank Miller's film "300" in large part explores this uneven battle, that a small contingent of Spartans would not submit on bended knee to the million Persians who seek to conquer the Greeks, and fought for freedom. Will the world we know today also be faced with such a battle, where a small number of individuals worldwide understand and value freedom above all else, and when challenged by immense populations of people who had submitted to relinquishing their freedoms, to some imperialistic dreams of world conquest, will they be able to stand and fight? This is facing our world today.

How can such a fight be avoided? Only through deterrence. We must deter the conquest dreams of the enemy, those who would have us submit to them on bended knee, We as a planet had been so horrified by the destructions of war that we are willing to do all possible to avoid a world conflict in the future. Multiculturalism has ben proposed as one way to prevent this, by accepting the good of all cultures as viable for their human populations. But there is flaw in this, that those populations who had submitted on bended knee to tyranny cannot respect our freedoms. Worse, they vie to use our freedoms against us to subvert our free way of life to theirs. Appeasement of such forces cannot and will not work. Multiculturalism is a form of containment, but it fails when faced when equal respects are unreciprocated. When wishful thinking of idealism confronts reality, containment is insufficient a deterrent to aggression and coercions. There is a better way than containment when confronting predatory behaviors in human affairs, and that is deterrence. Deterrence can better address unequal cultural non-reciprocations, but we do not yet understand how, and this is our current dilemma. We must make the enemy (unnamed at this point because this enemy is universal) to understand that we will not submit to their demands on bended knee. On principle, no matter how packaged, whether secular or religiously inspired, their coercions must be exposed, and deterred, without appeasements.

That we must fight for freedom is a philosophical question, how to deter an enemy, any present or future enemies, of our right to be free, to pursue our lives with reciprocal politeness and mutual respect for the other, without submitting to their coercions, is as much a challenge to our minds as to our physical military strengths. It is a quest of the ages, a holy grail of peace, that we as conscious and intelligent human beings must find. Can it work through dialogue? Perhaps, unless the other's mind is closed to reason. Can we succeed by exposing duplicity, false analogies, outright deceits of the enemy? Regardless of how this deceit is packaged, it must be exposed with truth. This is absolutely necessary, and we cannot progress in a reciprocity of peace and goodwill unless we face it with truth, reciprocally. Any hidden agenda must be exposed, same as any subversions of our freedoms must be exposed. If the enemy has a private code of conduct only for itself, but a separate public code of conduct for us, that too must be exposed. The truth demands that we treat each other on equal terms of mutual respect, or else the converse of this is that one feels supreme to the other, which is neither acceptable nor workable for future human relations. If we are to succeed in achieving world peace, not through some grand scheme of world conquest of every man, woman and child submitting to a world empire, but rather through the empowerment of every man, woman and child, as free human beings who are respected for their freedoms, then and only then will the world enjoy the power of such freedoms. This is our quest, to see a future humanity empowered, and because of this power where each human being is free, to reach for the ultimate yet still illusive heights of our human potentials. We as a planet can be great if we are empowered with freedom. The successes of such deterrence to war is that we then redirect our attention from conflicts and coercions to the creativity human intelligence can liberate in each one of us. Solutions to our environmental, health and economic well being are attainable by a free people, whereas an enslaved people cannot do this. The future well being of our planet rests on this. Let us explore, debate, and in any way enlighten, whether or not we agree, on how to deter war. There is an answer out there to this quest, and that is the answer our discussions must seek, with reason and goodwill. We believe it can be done.

Third order: We choose this date, 1st September, to follow in the path of other great dates of freedom, not those dates of war that live on in infamy, but the dates of human achievements and success over the coercions that seek to enslave and keep us down. We are the free, and there may only be a few of us, but in putting our minds together against overwhelming odds, we will succeed. Freedom is the future for our world, because slavery must become extinct. It can and will be done. And if we succeed, world peace can be achievable in our lifetime.


Ivan - and editors, Humancafe
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
FYI: Text formatting, or colors, symbols and images, uploading images, can be found here: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi?pg=formatting (Please print it out for future reference)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/axiology
Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 12:16 am:   

On the Axiology of War - on the values and ethics of freedom, government, and narcism.

In the Wiki entry for Axiology, it says:
Axiology, from the Greek axia (value, worth), is the study of value or quality. It is often thought to include ethics and aesthetics—philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of value—and sometimes it is held to lay the groundwork for these fields, and thus to be similar to value theory and meta-ethics.


265666032_ff37eece50.jpg19254751_ec90bb32be.jpg


The most demanding ethics of the Axiology of war is to understand why of some individuals need power. Why do they need power? Is it from some inborn or inbred paranoia? Or from some acquired fears? Or is it from a need to be admired, even loved in some perverse way? In any such underlying motivation for power, one stands out above all others: Narcism. It is a need to be validated with admiration to satisfy a self love. I propose that the axiology of war is this: that Narcism if not satisfied will react with violence and war against our freedoms. We are fighting for our freedom against a worldwide growth in Narcism (also called Narcissism). The axiology of war must focus there.

We of the 21st century are posed with a unique opportunity, that we may end all wars. The world's challenge today is from an aggressive dogma that seeks to impose its principles and values upon all in the world, as mandated by their leader's dogmas, to politically force the world to his interpretations of his self-designed power structure. Given that some 80% of today's world conflicts involve Narcism in some capacity, whether war lords or tyrannical governments, there is compelling reason to think this will be the war of the centuries. Until it is completed, with victory for liberty, there is no reason to assume that the Narcism wars will dissolve in the foreseeable future. This is not a war against narcism per se, since every man's or woman's self worth is personal for them, as it should be; rather this is a war against the political force of Narcism, through its wars, to impose its sense of world order in compliance with its mandates of political dogmas for all humanity of the planet. This mandate is of necessity anti human freedoms, if it demands that we submit to its dogmatic imperatives, which subvert our human Laws of Agreements into laws demanding allegiance to their world order. Here our freedoms are at risk, freedom of thought and being is threatened by such power. To submit to physical force is slavery, and to submit to intellectual force is likewise a form of mental slavery. We who are free are therefore threatened by both physical force and intellectual force to submit our freedoms to slavery, as dictated by submission to this world power, and its law. When our rights to human agreements chosen of our own free will, and our constitutional governments of laws, are threatened with laws that dictate to us that our human agreements, what we had agreed upon socially as a national populace as wrong, we are being subjected to coercions, enforced through punishments by men, which invalidates our freedoms. This is the axiology of war we face today, and until it is resolved, whether by intellectual means or physical means, it will keep planetary peace in arrears for a very long time. Our goal is not to face a personal narcism, a personal matter, but to confront a political Narcism, an evil power with its commensurate coercions. We must face this if we are to bring about world peace.

Coercion is when our reasonable human agreements, when made of sound mind, are disallowed, which forces us into disagreement. Criticism of such disagreement, when coerced, is then disallowed by those who oppose our agreements. This is coercions, and to complete a cycle of coercions, that when one protests the coercions one is coerced further into submission to these coercions. Who would demand such coercions? Oppressors and tyrants demand it. Often, these are individuals, mostly men, who have a narcissist nature to seek power. What distinguishes this power of individuals from our democratically elected powers of constitutional laws, that insure our personal freedoms, is that they are mandated on us by others to be obeyed. If we fail to submit to their oppressive obediences, they take it to be 'just cause' to then either punish us, or make war on us. In effect, these power hungry individuals are narcissist bullies who feel they must be obeyed. What they lack in inner strength, humility, they make up by bullying the weak. Worse, they kill to feed their narcism. We who are free do not endorse this narcissistic bullying, so must fight it off, as we had been doing for hundreds of years. The free world is largely free of such oppressions, but the unfree world is riddled with them. To end war, we will need to see the unfree world rid itself of these oppressions, which means they must rid themselves of the mandated imperative to obey their narcissistic masters, those who are coercing them into submission.

We need to end slavery of every kind, both physical slavery as well as mental slavery, if we are to be free as human beings to pursue our greater ideals of humanity. At risk are our individual human rights, our right to seek the truth of our living universal reality, and our freedom of belief, including our freedom to either believe in God, or not. Coercion stops all this, and it demands our beliefs be circumscribed by their dogmatic beliefs as dictated to us by narcissists. Freedom demands that we are able to believe as we will, even if not endorsed by any dogma, and that in our beliefs we interact with other human beings only by agreements, and never by coercing others into what it is we believe. There is a sinister side to this, however, in that those who are willing to coerce us out of our freedoms will use the same argument, by saying that we who are free are coercing them into our way of thinking. However, that is false reasoning, because as a personal faith, they are free to believe as any free human being is free to believe; but as a political narcissism desirous of imposing its ideology on others, under the rule of self-contradiction, says that their ideology may not deprive us of this freedom of belief. There is no parity of equality between freedom and submission, since one is a belief system that allows others their personal beliefs, while the other is a belief system that demands their personal beliefs fit a certain demand, which is coercion. Freedom, the right for human beings to seek agreement, cannot coexist with coercion, the mandated demand that human beings agree only with what they are told to agree. This is what the Narcissists strive to do, to make us obey them, to coerce us into submission to them. If the world is to advance into is higher potentials of human consciousness, and knowledge, it must be allowed the freedom to interact only through agreements, and never through coercions. The only valid use of coercion, by this respect, is to stop others from coercing, and no other time. The narcissist bullies of the world may never be allowed that power to coerce, if we are to have our world peace.

We use political Narcism here as an example, as a coercively politicized faith (not a personal faith), because its axiology is a real and present danger to our freedoms. The same had existed in past time, tyrannies of all forms, such as individual dictatorships, or personal cult worship, and national dictatorships, such as Marxism or Fascism became, or institutionalized slavery, which the world has outlawed. These were gradually defeated with our freedoms, though they continue to exist in more primitive parts of the world. Medieval Inquisition, a religious dogma coercion, was also defeated by European Enlightenment, and civilization soared with accomplishments as the world never seen before. America's accomplishments did the same, in large part because of her freedoms. Coercions of the mind and body existed within both Nazism and Soviet Communism, both defeated, one by war, the other by a cold peace, where Communism fell from within. These latter lasted only a short time, while narcissistic polticized dogmas had been with us for centuries. It is the hope that we will unlock within these discussions peaceful ways to overcome these tyrannies of political coercions, narcissistic dogmatism or any human coercions, not to offend but to better preserve our freedoms, without having to resort to war. Remember we are fighting an enemy who is exceptionally brutal, who in their tortures, beheadings, suicide killings, are loathsome. Yet, we must hold the higher ground in our ethics, not ever become like them. The purpose here is not to empower such vile behavior, not to go to war, but rather to avoid it, by being clearly in the right to disempower those narcissists who are coercive, and clearly in the wrong. This is what here is called 'deterrence'. The purpose of this deterrence is to disarm Narcism as a political power over our freedoms. This is a present fight, today, that we are threatened with it, world wide now. Narcissists are power hungry, and we must not empower that hunger with any validations at all.

This war is more an intellectual pursuit than endorsement of violent conflict, but it is war just the same, and a war we must win. If we succeed as a planet, both in our understanding this, even by those of limited understanding, and in disempowering Narcissism, the violent wars will never come. Then we will know a millennial reign of peace. And then the world can be finally free to shift its attention from an axiololgy of war, what had been a permanent state of war, to an axiology of world peace. But we will be tested first. Our freedoms are given to us by God, not men, and this we must preserve at all cost, if we are to rise up as a fully conscious planet. The future of our fully human destiny is that we must pass this test. Narcism as a political force of coercions in the world must be deterred, discredited, and ultimately undone. In every world this has happened, narcism always self destructs, for some it takes longer. So too must we pass this test.

232189290_90a603116e.jpg

Darius fleeing, the Battle of Issus (333 BC), Pompeii mosaic, House of the Faun
(interactive)



Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 07:40 pm:   

First order of the day: UN-BANNED - Ban lifted on Mohideen Ibramsha.
Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 12:53 am: Humancafe

Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 09:12 pm:   

I was banned because I refused to answer a direct question on whether I agree to the 'separation of Church and State.' I answer now not for discussion but to clarify my own thoughts.

We fail when we combine good with evil and treat them as same. Good must be encouraged, while evil must be fought.

To me there are good Church and evil Church. Close to home, there are good Islam and evil Islam. To ensure equality of all human beings such that their total benefit is maximized is good Islam; to try and attain global conquest is evil Islam.

Likewise there are good State and evil State. A State that ensures equal opportunity for every child to blossom is a good State; a State that perpetuates inequality among different children is evil. For example, in India, a rule was attempted to make the child do what the father did. Thanks to God, that rule was outright rejected and the population of India chose to give education - common scientific education - to all. India chose a good State with respect to education for all.

If we agree that there are good Church and evil Church, and that there are good State and evil State, then my response is:

1. I recommend the integration of good Church with good State.
2. I oppose the integration of good Church with evil State because the evil State would exploit the good Church to the detriment of common good.
3. I oppose the integration of evil Church with good State likewise as the evil Church would influence the good State to evil actions.
4. I oppose the integration of evil Church and evil State as I believe that would be the worst tyranny.

Why do I reply now? If we are to evolve strategies of deterrence we need to get the help of all capable minds. There are some who believe in dogma but are willing to work for the good of mankind. [In this I am not referring to myself.] By rejecting the dogma induced reasoning we lose. [Agreed dogma induced reasoning is inferior to pure reasoning. If we could avoid war through inferior reasoning, why not?] So let us not debate the relative merits and demerits of dogma and pure reason. Let us put our minds to the common problem of making war disgreeable.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I do not plan to delve on this issue of 'separation of Church and State' any more. If there are corrections I accept them apriori.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 07:37 am:   

One success story:

In every R&D we concentrate on a primary goal. The side effects take time to understand. This was the case with refrigeration and air conditioning, which are necessary to live in advanced countries.

Initially CFCs were used. These caused ozone depletion. As reduced ozone meant risk to all life on earth, the Montreal Protocol was agreed on and the CFC production has stopped in 1996. See http://tristate.apogee.net/cool/cos.asp

There are alternatives under development like HFC, ammonia, propane and CO2. [http://www.daikin.com/environment/info/influence.html] More details could be found in http://www.mitsubishielectric.ca/hvac/CM-R410A-Info.html

A comprehensive write-up on the positive side effects of phasing-out the CFCs is given in http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/benefits.html

Now coming to deterrence. Has deterrence really worked? Was MAD a real success? Did the USSR go away because of MAD? Did the defence complexes of the USSR simply wound-up? Is not Russia flexing her muscles? Are not there reports of the Japanese underground (Yakuza) wanting to get even? Should we look at deterrence or should we look at benign forms of warfare?

Consider the case with refrigeration and airconditioning. Just because the CFCs used in these applications caused ozone depletion, mankind did not migrate to temperate regions. We found benign alternatives.

Could we look at benign warfare first so that we get time to work out strategies of deterrence?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 10:54 am:   

Mohideen, by using the term "benign warfare" are you referring to "police action"? Perhaps you might define this term better, since some may interpret using CFCs as originally 'benign' until we understood that it was damaging the ozone layer. In your example, it was not a benign war that ended the use of CFCs, rather it was an 'agreement' to stop its production, a social agreement called the Montreal Protocol.

Would police action against mafia family bosses be considered 'benign', or arresting members of some terrorist cell be 'benign warfare'? We know that on a larger scale, warfare is far from benign, since it involves large numbers of casualties and deaths. Each human being is worth something, to themselves and others, as well as intrinsically per our modern humanist values, and to hunt down criminals or enemy is not exactly a benign enterprise. It causes suffering and death, often destruction of property, and untold long term psychological damage. Still, we are forced to stop coercions against others, so police action is necessary.

In ancient times humans hunted game, which was 'benign' to the humans, but when this use of weapons turned to hunting humans (first panel in OP), it became anything but benign. Perhaps you might explain better what you meant? Thanks.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/limit war
Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 01:23 pm:   

Limited warfare as a form of purgatory of civilian human suffering.


478,417px-Pur_18.jpg
Dante's Purgatorio, by Gustave Dore'


"Limited war" in the dictionary is defined as: A war whose objective is of smaller scope than total defeat of the enemy.

In "Death of Limited War" article of Citizen Soldier, it says:

quote:

The concept of limited war means belligerents should not direct hostilities against civilian populations - war is to be fought between armies and navies.
...
Limited war reflects the idea that nations who are enemies today would be better off if they could make peace and trade with one another. This is harder to do when unlimited war creates massive civilian casualties and destroys the productive infrastructure of a nation.

Since limited war just makes sense, why don't all combatants follow its rules? Again, the answer is simple. In order to see the logic of limited war, you must hold a worldview that values human life, and a set of moral rules that says "love your enemies." The history of warfare shows these ideas are unique to nations who hold the Judeo-Christian ideas of the Bible.
...
Clinton's Kosovo War was not only the first war the U.S. started, it is the first war we deliberately directed against a civilian population.



This 'limited war' against civilian populations, as opposed to armies of the enemy, is where such limited warfare fails. It then becomes a crime against humanity. All wars have civilian casualties, but specific wars against civilians, limited or full scale, are not benign but disastrous. This becomes especially problematic if the enemy values little human life, so uses the civilian population, especially women and children, as a cover from which to attack. The retaliations, of necessity, when hitting back such positions will kill civilians. So a 'limited war' in such a case fails in its objective of limiting casualties, but rather expands them. For this reason, as the article says above, there is cause to believe that limited warfare can no longer be utilized, since it has cruel and disastrous effects on populations. Whether or not the enemy populations harbor such fighters, and whether or not the fighters feel they are doing so for a 'just cause', the use of limited warfare fails.

Limited warfare fails on two important fronts. First of all, it gives the enemy the advantage, that there will be no punitive action against them, merely a form of containment. However, this merely prolongs the war, which in itself is already unconscionable. Second, it ties up the military in fighting by some designer rules of conflict the enemy does not care to respect in return, which hurts morale of our soldiers. So on both fronts, limited warfare is a failure, and in the end proves ineffective for conduct of war. To deter war the enemy must understand clearly that any expedition against them will be full force and punitive. Then they will less be able to enlist the help of the civilian population at large, since the casualties of such civilians is assured, and the people will do what they can to distance themselves from combatants. In major wars this usually means mass exodus away from the front. Civilians are not stupid, and no matter what the fighters tell them, they will try to get out of the way. That is the first deterrent, to make civilians get away from the war and its fighters.

The purgatory of limited war can be undone with full scale war, or at least the threat of full scale punitive actions with maximum destruction. I understand this is a harsh prescription, but sometimes the medicine is bitter but the effect is beneficial. In the case of war, tell the truth. War is not deceit but a full show of force. Fight them where you need to, but let the civilian population make its own choices. If they choose to remain, then they know what price they must pay. If they leave, then the fighters, especially those hiding behind women and children populations, have less chance of success. Then go for the kill. That deters war more than limited warfare.

Ivan
______________________________________________________________________

Also see: Who is the enemy? U.S. Must Understand 21st-Century Combat by Rep Allen West
(Roll Call - Nov. 2, 2011)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 06:41 pm:   

I used the CFC example to show that war itself might not be ruled out forever as airconditioning could not be ruled out.

War could be eliminated for a small group like Budhdha and his followers but not among the whole population. The CFC also indicated that the side-effects affected the whole of humanity and not just the beneficiaries of CFC.

To me 'benign warfare' means warfare that affects the combatants only and not others. For example the current war in Iraq could affect the Iraqis and those fighting them. However it should not affect India which is not a party at all.

I agree with you that once the civilian population knows that it might suffer permitting the warriors to fight from among their midst they either migrate or indirectly become warriors themselves. The problem is when a civilian population is held hostage by the unethical warriors.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 08:37 am:   

An example for other civilians:

http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_6790500
===
Residents of nearby villages fanned out to protect their houses and prevent the fighters from seeking refuge and melting into the local population, state TV reported.
===
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 02:44 pm:   

Should the camp refugees be allowed back into the devastated areas?

From this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6975710.stm

It appears the former camp was badly damaged, possibly still has explosives going off inside, so would it be advisable to let the residents back in? Perhaps it may be safer to relocate the residents around the country of Lebanon rather than concentrating them into one compound, since this would lower the risks of the militants who took over the compound from regrouping there. Just a thought, a kind of 'affirmative action' for Palestinians living in Lebanon. But the population around the refugee camp were clearly able and willing to help put down this insurrection, and the internal compound residents did flee as soon as possible when the fighting started. However, the fighting did not stop until full force was applied by Lebanese military forces, which is a lesson here. When the civilian populations resents the militants, they will work to put them down, and disempower them. It is their right to do so, to protect their families from warring militants. Thanks for the info, Mohideen.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 07:46 am:   

If self correction prevails, external force is unnecessary. However when a society has competing groups self-correction is not possible. What are we to do then?

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/102363.html
===
She said the 'special situation' status is a legal term that allows the army to take special actions in the area. Barak made the decision in the wake of the increasing Qassam rocket attacks on the Israeli western Negev town of Sderot, she said.

On Monday, nine rockets fell in Sderot, including one Qassam, which landed outside a day-care centre, causing 12 small children to be treated for shock at Ashkelon's Barzilai Hospital.

Local media said that Barak also ordered the defence establishment to examine the legal ramifications of cutting electricity and fuel supplies to Gaza in an effort to impair Hamas' ability to govern.
===

http://themedialine.org/news/news_mideast_daily.asp?Date=09/05/2007&category_id= 8
===
One possibility being considered is the cutting off of electricity to Gaza each time a rocket is fired. However, dissenting voices in the government say collective punishment is unwarranted.
===

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103968.html
===
Israeli officials vowed stepped-up retaliation Monday after a rocket fired by Islamic Jihad landed near a day-care center in the southern town of Sderot.
===

http://www.spcm.org/Journal/spip.php?breve924
===
The anti-Hamas video produced by Fatah is a medley of scenes of destruction in a Gaza mosque that was attacked by Hamas gunman. The Fatah clip includes pictures of the dead and interviews with the injured Islamic Jihad members who had been in the mosque.
===

It seems Islamic Jihad and Fatah are sympathetic to each other. In that case, Islamic Jihad is an enemy of Hamas, the defacto rulers of Gaza.

Can we attack the police because a criminal caused an injury? Won't it be right for Israel to attack Islamic Jihad and its sympathizers rather than the rulers?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 07:23 am:   

What is that?

http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/UAE/216567
===
Although the Israelis and Americans use their own “terrorist theology” ...
===

I am sure we don't want any of this theology. Or do we?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 06:05 pm:   

When training guard dogs, beware of regression.


quote:

Although the Israelis and Americans use their own “terrorist theology” ...
===

I am sure we don't want any of this theology. Or do we?



It happened in Rome, when they used barbarian forces to fight their battles, which in the end helped bring down Rome. The US used similar training for the Taleban to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, which in the end backfired. If Israel nurtured Hamas, now these are more enemy than ally, and may be getting support from Syria and Iran to boot. When guard dogs are trained to protect with their viciousness, that viciousness can turn back on the owners, especially their children. Using the 'divide and conquer' strategy has its limits if the enemy enlisted to fight for you turns against you in the end. In principle, it is better to vanquish the enemy than to use him for your fighting, if this article is true, regardless of theology.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/WW4
Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 11:08 pm:   

World War IV: the death of extremism.


osama.jpg
Bin Laden's 'narcissist' twin?

It took three world wars in the past century to put down extremism. The first war was against the extremism of war itself, but it did not end there; the second war was for a mythological extremist imperialism, which victory ended its horrors there; the third war, the Cold War, was against a secular extremism of a Marxist Soviet-imperialist dream of world conquest, and it took three quarters of a century to end it. We are now entering a new world war, the fourth, which will be to end extremism of any kind, secular or religious itself. Each war caused immense human misery and lost lives. This war, World War IV, will be no different unless we find a way to end extremism.

In his short article for National Review, "World War IV?", William F. Buckley Jr. asks: Begin with our military superiority, which would appear to make victory inevitable. “Islamists have nothing like the military machine the Axis deployed in World War II, nor the Soviet Union during the Cold War. What do the Islamists have to compare with the Wehrmacht or the Red Army? The SS or Spetznaz? The Gestapo or the KGB? Or, for that matter, to Auschwitz or the Gulag?” - (Daniel Pipes) Yet, this question is more than rhetorical. Yes, we have military might. But do we have the extreme will necessary to use it against an enemy that does have extremism at its base? This will be the primary question asked during WW IV: Do we have the will to beat extremism?

An example of this extremism is the just released Bin Laden tape, where his faded but refurbished image once again makes it into the popular press, such as here on BBC News: Bin Laden says US should convert. Convert to what? Religious extremism? That is how his message is understood, that America, or any nation, will either face destruction from his cohort, or else it can avoid war by accepting the invitation to join him in his extremist beliefs. Safe to say it will not happen, but nevertheless it paints a rather clear picture of what WW IV will be up against: Extremism. Whether it is truly a religious extremism, or in fact merely another form of secular extremism in religious guise, is for each person to ascertain. I personally am not swayed by religious arguments, since I see religion as human mythology, so for me his Da'wa to America is merely another political secular invitation to war. Do we have to honor it? No, of course not. It carries no weight whatsoever. It is his extreme belief, not ours.

This is not a religious fight, not a battle of arguments between dogmatic believers as to who is right. Rather, it is a political fight, a fight of control over vast populations by extremist beliefs of such control. This is what WW IV is about, that some want to control populations one way, in their extremism making threats to conquer if they are rejected; and the other is to control populations from having this extremism, so that all can live in peace together with harmony, and by agreement. These are two radically different approaches to structuring society for the masses of human beings now alive on the planet. This is not a religious war at all, but one of secular control, of political control in this world, not religiously in some promises of the next, but in this one to control peoples' minds and lives. Which is preferable, to live free as a human being, or to be controlled totally by someone's political secular system over their lives? Why did we fight Communism and Nazism? We won, yet how did the 21st century once more get to this? Was this not supposed to be the century of peace and liberty as ideals for all humanity? Whatever happened of a healthy and happy, prosperous humanity into the new millennium? Something went wrong.

I think it is actually our religious freedoms that spawned extremism. I realize this sounds nonsensical, but it has merit. If we were all living in a totally controlled environment where freedom of thought was disallowed, and only obedience to the rules imposed were allowed, then the idea of freely choosing what to believe simply cannot exist. If all obey the same way, then there is no room for dissent of any kind, since our minds are then controlled. This is a kind of Orwellian world the extremists would impose on humanity, where each person is totally subjected to mind and body control in every aspect of their lives. Of course, we have since matured as a humanity away from such rigid controls, though others from Lenin to Hitler to Mao have tried to impose such order on the living. Millions died for their extremism. Today it is the extremists of a religious group that thinks it has rights over our minds, because in our religious freedom we do not answer to them, nor to anyone else. If there is an afterlife retribution for our existence, then that is where it belongs, in the next life. But in this life, while we are alive as conscious and reasonable human beings, there is only the retribution of what we do to each other and ourselves. In the world of freedom, these human actions are constrained by laws that define when a person is acting in ways injurious to another; and if found to do so is deemed a criminal to be restrained, or otherwise punished. Each one of us is duty bound to make moral choices not injurious to each other, nor ourselves. However, in the world of extremism, the responsibility does not fall on the individual human being to have a mind, but rather on the system to have a 'mind' for him, or her, so that all choices are not personal but determined in advance for them. The question of moral behaviors then has little merit, since how can a person who is not free to choose act in any way other than how programmed to act? So there is no 'morality' in predetermined actions, since the freedom to make choices in one's life are gone. But we who are free, both in our mental processes to think and choose, as well as within the laws that protect those freedoms from trespass and coercions by others, do have the ability to make moral choices, because we can. It is within the context of these moral choices, what is right for our individual human being as rational and conscious beings, that we can choose to either be free or not. If we choose badly, then our moral choices regress back into slavery, so that freedom is lost. And it is this freedom of choice that is being threatened today, what is our WW IV by the extremists, once again. Why is this happening? Because we are free, and that threatens extremism of any kind more than anything else on Earth. Control is what extremism wants, not reason, not dreams, not the beauty of an evolved human spirituality conscious of its greatest universal potentials; no, extremism wants control, and that is all. Extremism of any kind is just another secular power grab.

So this is the great war we are about to face, and as the video shows, from the point of view of extremists, this war is already on. We who are free to believe as we wish to believe, to live our lives as freely breathing human beings, do not see this as a war in progress, but rather as an annoyance which we must address. We will address it, over and over again, until such extremism is finally and soundly once again conquered, like in the previous three world wars. I have no doubt freedom will win this one, once again, because that is the future of humanity. We cannot raise ourselves morally and intellectually as fully mature humanity without this freedom to choose. It is mandatory that we exercise such freedom, and pass it on to all succeeding generations to come. But unless we will this, and fight a new war against extremism itself, we may find that our humanity will be held back for many generations, same as was experienced in the Soviet states, where it took nearly four generations to undo the damage. How we deter this war with awareness and consciousness in advance, to stop the extremism dead in its tracks, will determine the future of our world.

Each war takes millions of lives. This next one could take the most, totalling all previous wars. This is the great challenge for the entire civilized world, and it should not be taken lightly. Can it be deterred in this new century not by giving into extremism, but by canceling it? In effect, can we put extremism out of business before it again takes millions of lives? The failure to do this is horrific, but there is no other way. Extremism must be conquered for all time to come. Then the world can finally know Peace.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Catholic
Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 08:22 am:   

Official: Germany terror cell may be 50 strong
Two German converts to Islam, Turkish citizen held over alleged plots

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20665010/

This particular cell set up shop in Ulm, the birthplace of Albert Einstein. What a twist of fate.

They amassed enough explosive material to level a major building.

If well look back at Al Qeada's statements they talk about an attack aimed at the throne of Peter and would be massive in size.

Frankfort and the associated U.S. airbase were assessed as the targets of this cell.

What else is going on out there that we have not uncovered?

Is the Vatican at risk as well?

A Catholic Person
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Vatican
Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 07:14 pm:   

Thanks Catholic for this heads up on the Vatican threat.

I checked news sources but found little current on that, though I do not doubt this is on the extremists' minds. About a year ago, at the time of the Pope rage after Benedict's speech, there was a direct threat by an imam from Gaza: 'Green Flag of Allah will fly over Vatican', but no follow through on this. An earlier threat was received by Spanish television, In Faxes Sent to Media, Vatican Threatened Twice, two years ago, there was reference to the Vatican taking a stand against the Extremist views, but again no follow through. Idle threats are not taken lightly, but lack of action shows these are empty, and perhaps more the works of deranged minds than real terrorist extremists. The ravings of a lone imam in Gaza does not constitute the whole faith, so it should be dismissed as not more than that, ravings. There had been no violence from either Judaism or Christianity on religious grounds for many centuries, though the extremists act as if it all happened yesterday. When was the last Jew sacrificed for Yaweh, or last stoning death? When did the Inquisition lose its grip on secular laws? Very long ago. The fact that extremists are still raving about it today merely betrays their deep paranoia, and impotence. However, if a credible threat against the Vatican does exist, let us know the source. Perhaps a link would be helpful. Thanks again for your update.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 10:49 pm:   

Mujahedeen Army issues threat of attack on Vatican

The statement is issued to 'you dog of Rome' then begins to threaten Rome saying, we will 'shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home.'

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=128&id=5481&t=Muj ahedeen+Army+issues+threat+of+attack+on+Vatican
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

infamy
Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 09:52 am:   

911

iTROP.jpg

i
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 08:36 am:   

Mujahedeen Army issues threat of attack on Vatican
Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 10:49 pm: Anon

Thanks for the link. The news was dated September 16, 2006. I would consider this as a threat from a deranged mind.

The life of every human is protected by God. None shall die before time and none shall live after the appointed time. Death and worry about death is irrelevant. We die just once; we, the brave, die just once. The coward dies every minute.

Let us make the whole of mankind brave.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 08:52 am:   

That is how his message is understood, that America, or any nation, will either face destruction from his cohort, or else it can avoid war by accepting the invitation to join him in his extremist beliefs.
Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 11:08 pm: Ivan/WW4

I came to USA during July 2000. I followed the 2000 Presidential elections closely. The popular mandate was won by Al Gore. This administration started without the popular mandate. There are allegations of manipulation in the 2004 election. Thus this administration continues without popular mandate.

The people of America has no role in the attrocities committed by this administration.

Islam permits revenge by the aggrieved party. It does not permit harming the innocents. The permission is restricted to punishing the criminal to the extent of the crime and no more. In cases where the criminal cannot be identified there is no scope for revenge.

If there would be any action carried out by any group or individual that would harm an ordinary resident of America such an action is a sin in Islam. Muslims are encouraged to facilitate the good and forbid the bad. Thus it is the duty of every Muslim living in America to see to it that no ordinary resident suffers harm.

Yes, we need to fight extremism. As a Muslim I join forces with you in fighting extremism.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 07:26 pm:   

Why did we fight Communism and Nazism? We won, yet how did the 21st century once more get to this?
Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 11:08 pm: Ivan/WWIV

Did we really win over communism?

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_admits_new_insurgent_grenade_causing_0905.html
===
CBS News reports that the Russian-made device is light enough to be thrown by a single insurgent standing alongside a road and is equipped with a parachute so that it falls vertically on its target and can take out even armored vehicles.
===

Please note that the device is 'Russian-made.' We did not win over communism. We simply overpowered it with weapons. Had we engaged communism in debate and convinced the population of USSR and her satellites that our way of life is better we would have really buried communism. Military victories are transient. Victory on the strength of ideas is permanent. Example: Budhdhism abhors violence to all life centuries after Budhdha.

We need to take a relook at Communism and debate it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 12:32 am:   

Interesting point, Mohideen, that ideas are more powerful than weapons.

In yours:

quote:

We did not win over communism. We simply overpowered it with weapons. Had we engaged communism in debate and convinced the population of USSR and her satellites that our way of life is better we would have really buried communism. Military victories are transient. Victory on the strength of ideas is permanent. Example: Budhdhism abhors violence to all life centuries after Budhdha.


Indeed, communism lies only dormant, it is not truly conquered. The siren songs of Marx are still heard in some quarters, especially academia, where the 'class struggle' continues. But it has lost most of its appeal in the popular mind.

Russia of today allows for religious expression, has no compulsury studies of Marxist ideas, dismantled Gulag prison labor camps, and has largely traded communist economic redistribution and collectivism for market exchange forces, like their stock exchange. However, the old Russian dream of imperialism seems unabated, still controlling lands from the Pacific to the western borders with Europe. Weapons were really never used against the Soviet empire, except in minor skirmishes, mostly Korea and Afghanistan, almost Cuba. Where does communism exist today? North Korea, sort of Castro's Cuba, a few leftist insurgents in South America, Maoist rebels in Nepal? It's gone. The remaining major communist state is China, the largest, but now largely capitalistic and very successfully with very cheap labor. Russian capitalism is still dominated by a mafia like mentality, not Marxism, which may in fact be holding back investments from the West. Remember Putin was former head of the KGB, and he runs his country the same way, with help from oligarchic money interests within Russia. But the old ideals of communism are pretty much gone, since they have now embraced western styled market exchange. To a larger or lesser degree it is working, at least for the privileged classes with lots of money, but most of the people are not really participating. Some of it has to do with the old communist ideal of not working anymore than you have to, but this backfires with poverty. The rest is money is too tightly controlled in hands of a few, so capital is not growing, The whole Yukos Oil tragedy is one expample of coercions forced on the market place, false accusations of corruptions, political maneuvers that ultimately do not serve the interests of the country at large. Whenever corruption takes hold, something gives out, and that is usually market exchange fairness, personal freedoms, and capital formations. Russia is suffering economically and socially for this reason today. You can't keep stealing from the 'system' and expect good results, because it eventually bankrupts the system.

The reason I bring this up is to show that in fact, it was 'ideas' that conquered the old Soviet Marxist system, which led to its internal collapse economically as well as politically. More importantly, it also collapsed philosophically, where the ideology of Marx got buried under the rubble of this collapse of empire. Does Russia still dream of expansionism? I suspect it does, but not that easy anymore, though they will play the Iran and Middle East card as they had in the past, to control Islamic masses for their purposes. It failed then, and very likely it will fail again. But they will try.

Would a new philosophy based on the strength of ideas eventually overcome the Russian imperial ideology of expansionism? Sure, like it reformed Japanese imperial expansionism, or perhaps even China's. Germany and Japan were defeated in war, and they changed after the war with realizing that they have more to gain from a western styled economic and government system than the old ways. Will Russia see the same, in time? Very likely. But that is not conquest by force of arms, but rather by force of ideas. Can you see that? Our free democratic system of interhuman exchange sheltered from coercions is far more powerful than empire. And that is 'idea'. People as a whole are rather slow, but eventually they get it. Once an idea takes hold, it cannot easily be undone. Freedom is one such idea, still new, but it already has proven its worth, however imperfectly, as far superior to communism or slavery of empire.

Look at India, from a quasi-Marxist socialist state to smashing economics success today, and it's only beginning. I was there twenty years ago, and I saw it coming! I am glad it worked. Bangalore today looks like Rte 128 around Boston. :-) Watch it spread to all other parts of the country, over time. Peoples' minds change slowly, over time. But Freedom is powerful, very powerful, and we still barely understand it.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/2385
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:51 pm:   

18 USC 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government, the Smith Act of 1940

125px-Great_Seal_of_the_US.png

Under the Smith Act of 1940, reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1951 and 1957, anyone who acts in ways to overthrow the U.S. Government, by violence or other means, is subject to criminal prosecution for Treason. The latter interpretation was diluted to not include those who merely plot theoretically, such as anarchists or communists, but actually form a nexus between advocacy and real actions.

Do today's Jihad Extremists fall under these categories, both as advocates and activists of overthrow of our American Constitutional Government? If they do, then even preaching in favor of such overthrow, if found connected with actual extremist groups who had acted now or in the past against our interests, should fall under the Smith Act. If they do not, as now interpreted by the Supreme Justices, then the law should be written to tighten the noose around this nexus of treason against our American legislative and judicial system. The overthrow advocates of our American Constitution, even in words preaching such overthrow, must be held accountable and liable for prosecution under U.S. Code 2385.

Here is the actual text:
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Will this be a deterrence to war? By legal means, it is a beginning. How Justices interpret this Code against Extremism both here in the United States and its territories, as well as American interests abroad, will either deter such actions or force them to surface into public view. Treason, by forming and recruiting units to undermine our laws, welfare and safety, must be severely punishable by law, to protect the common good at large as well as our human civil rights.

300px-Declaration_independence.jpg190px-Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg

Congress and Bill of Rights (interactive)


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 09:29 am:   

Germany and Japan were defeated in war, and they changed after the war with realizing that they have more to gain from a western styled economic and government system than the old ways.
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 12:32 am: Ivan

Possibly. Even when the governments might have adopted our ways, there are groups bent on revenge. I think Yakuza is one such group. How do we tackle such groups?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/gang/yakuza/1.html
===
Current yakuza members fall under three general categories: tekiya (street peddlers), bakuto (gamblers), and gurentai (hoodlums). The peddlers and gamblers trace their roots back to the 18th century while the hoodlums came into existence after World War II when the demand for black market goods created a booming industry.

... In Japan there are 110,000 active members divided into 2,500 families. By contrast, the United States has more than double the population of Japan but only 20,000 organized crime members total, and that number includes all criminal organizations, not just the Italian-American Mafia. The yakuza's influence is more pervasive and more accepted within Japanese society than organized crime is in America, and the yakuza have a firm and long-standing political alliance with Japan's right-wing nationalists. In addition to the typical vice crimes associated with organized crime everywhere, the yakuza are well ensconced in the corporate world. Their influence extends beyond Japanese borders and into other Asian countries, and even into the United States.
===

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/gang/yakuza/2.html
===
This lowering of standards has led to the Japanese National Police Agency adopting the term boryokudan ({the violent ones}) for the yakuza, lumping them in with other criminal groups. The yakuza, who treasure their ancestral ties to the old samurai, reject the term and consider it an insult.
===

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/gang/yakuza/3.html
===
A fervent nationalist, Kodama used his clout in the hope that the honor and glory of the Japanese empire could one day be restored.
===

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/gang/yakuza/5.html
===
Yakuza members have even been spotted in New York City, where they have made loose alliances with the American Mafia.
===

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/gang/yakuza/6.html
===
Like the fabled ninjas of ancient Japan, they can be everywhere and nowhere, but they're always lethal.
===

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/07-13-05/discussion.cgi.37.html
===
So it is not only governments who are keeping this revolutionary technology from seeing the light of day. The Yakuza? KGB? The Aum Shinrikyo cult?
===

The most successful attack by an enemy is one where the victim thinks the event is 'natural.' I believe the current weather in USA is not natural but we are led to believe so.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 06:47 am:   

Wrong approach to deterrence.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392576608&pagename=JPost%2FJPArti cle%2FShowFull
===
It sounds almost like a scene out of a Hollywood action movie. Soldiers disguised as Hamas militiamen abduct a senior Hamas terrorist who stops in the middle of a road in southern Gaza after an "old man" leaning on a cane collapses in front of his car.
===

Such tactics in dissimulation are bound to backfire. Once Israeli Elite Forces disguise themselves as Hamas militia and act inside Gaza, one cannot rule out the possibility of the next trigger for a war between Hamas and Israel being the act of Israeli Elite Forces themselves.

In future Hamas could pass off some of its own attacks as initiated by Israel inside Gaza.

These acts do not increase the power of deterrence by Israel but in fact diminish.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 07:04 am:   

A good approach to deterrence.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4537
===
In the Art of Warfare, Sun-Tzu advises: "In surrounding the enemy, leave him a way out; do not press an enemy that is cornered."
===

How true! Once my father emerged from the bathroom with his toe bleeding. Inside the bathroom I found a dead rat! My father having found the rat after he entered the bathroom - instead of leaving the door ajar for a moment to let the rat run away - closed the door and started beating the rat with a stick. The rate having found no escape bit him and possibly at that moment received the fatal blow.

Quoting from the article:
===
For one, Israel should receive a clear, public, and unwavering commitment to its protection from any nuclear attack, similar to proclamations made on behalf of Europe during the Cold War. "A nuclear attack on Israel will be considered a nuclear attack on the United States," is not a phrase attributed to any U.S. president. It should be now.
===

Would such a declaration lead to the reemergence of the Cold War? In my opinion, it is already back.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2436902.ece
===
President Putin called on the West yesterday to drop its “silly Atlantic solidarity” if it wanted improved relations with Russia.

He accused America and some of the countries of the EU of harbouring outdated Cold War attitudes that led to distrust, particularly on issues such as energy security and trade. Such stereotypical positions were “absolutely inappropriate” in the economic arena, he said, insisting that one source of friction – Russia’s decision to build a pipeline bypassing Poland – was not infringing anybody’s rights.

He also warned the West to stop giving Russia blanket lectures on democracy. “We will participate in any debate with our partners, but, if they want us to do something, they must be specific. If they want us to resolve Kosovo, let’s talk Kosovo. If they are worried about nuclear programmes in Iran, let’s talk about Iran, rather than talking about democracy in Russia.”

Neither would he take lectures over Russia imposing higher gas charges on Ukraine after years of Western preaching about the need for market prices. “If the West wants to support the Orange movement, let them pay for it. Do you think we are idiots?”

At the same time, he sounded a more conciliatory note, sayinmg: “We in Russia and you in Europe and the United States should be more patient. We should not be faultfinding in our relations and we should look for positive things. We should engage in friendly relations and support each other.”
===

Blowing hot and cold at the same time! Couple the above statement with the Russian arms killing Americans inside Iraq. Is not the Cold War on again, developing satellites of influence?

I strongly recommend that the American President issue the statement - a nuclear attack on Israel is the same as one on America - soon as a measure of deterrence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Iran missiles
Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 06:49 pm:   

Iran is belligerent, let there be no doubt.

600 Iranian missiles pointed at Israel. From JP news, 17 Sept. 2007:


quote:

"Iran will shoot at Israel 600 missiles if it is attacked," the Iranian news website, Assar Iran, reported. "600 missiles will only be the first reaction."

According to the report, dozens of locations throughout Iraq, which are being used by the US Army, have also been targeted.



There is no 'diplomacy' negotiations with these extremists. Force is all they will understand. To deter war, it is necessary to deter the enemy from deploying their threats. Iran wants the bomb, and they will slyly maneuver anyway they can to get it. The free world is at risk, including nations of the Middle East. Of Iranian belligerence by their Extremist mullahs there is no doubt. Iranian people are unable to contain them.

I agree, the US should make a strong statement, not merely sanctions on Iran. Any nuclear attack on any nation is unacceptable to the free world, nor the world at large. They must understand, any retaliation against Iran's belligerence would be devastating.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/sedition
Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 08:43 pm:   

18 USC 2384 - Sedition

This is an act likely to be called upon more often in the war against Extremists. It says the overthrow of our government, which includes the undermining of its laws, by legal or by non Constitutional means, is an act of war against the United States of America. This is a serious charge.

loc_233x100.gif

In recent documents released from the Holy Land Foundation trial, there is evidence of combined complicity to overthrow the US Constitution with a Sharia law, as mentioned in "Civilization-Jihad" memorandum:

quote:

CIVILIZATION-JIHAD: THE STRATEGIC GOAL OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.*

Having established its leadership, the Memorandum states the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America:

· The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is not escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

· As part of the process is “[the] conviction that the success of the settlement of Islam and its Movement in this country [America] is a success to the global Islamic Movement and true support for the sought after state [caliphate] God willing.”



The first bullet is a clear threat statement of hostile intent while the second speaks to foreign agency to a transnational movement with stated objectives that overlap with al-Qaeda’s. When assessing members who belong to organizations known to be identified with the Muslim Brotherhood, the inference should be that their designated leaders have knowledge of its identified roles and missions. It is not reasonable to do otherwise.

The strategic goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is multifold: the destruction of Western civilization through a long-term civilization-killing Jihad from within (“by their [our] hands”) and through sabotage (“the hands of the believers”) and, secondly; to support the global Islamic movement to establish an Islamic super-state, the caliphate.

When conducting outreach with organizations identified as being a party to the “strategic goals” identified in the Memorandum, the gain/loss assessment of associating with them should be undertaken in light of their clearly stated hostile intent that includes the subversion of American institutions through outreach, strategic deception and perception management. To undertake outreach with known identified organizations without knowledge of their objectives is to run the extreme risk of strategic manipulation by declared Jihad entities in ways that fulfill stated Muslim Brotherhood objectives as enumerated in the Memorandum.


This is per the policy of "Ikkwan", which is a Muslim Brotherhood policy statement to use 'peaceful' means and demographics to eventually overthrow the US Constitution with Sharia law though an Islamic movement and global Jihad:

quote:

In order for Islam and its Movement to become “a part of the homeland” in which it lives, “stable” in the land, “rooted” in the spirits and minds of its people, “enabled” in the lives of its society and has firmly-established “organizations” on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of the civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain “the keys” and the tools of this process in carry out this grand mission as a “Civilization Jihadist” responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslim and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.



The Department of Defense (DoD) is well aware of this network working within our borders to overthrow our Constitutional government. Hunting down and prosecuting these 'sedition' minded individuals is in principle similar to tracking down 'crime syndicates' within our borders, except these are also funded and directed by foreign interests, which makes it a condition of war. America is not willing to surrender its laws of freedom to any foreign or domestic extremist group with design to take out our freedoms, and our way of life. This is a war, though the enemy in this case is already inside our borders, so it will take a more concerted effort to route him out. There is no 'grand jihad' here, only the enemies of freedom acting in seditious ways, and will be prosecuted as such by law. Europe will address these in the same way.

In the American Free Thinker link, it says about Ikhwan:

quote:

Key Judgments on the Ikhwan in America

• The Muslim Brotherhood in America is a latent insurgency.
According to the new US counterinsurgency manual, FM 3-24, an insurgency is defined
"as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)." 
What the Brotherhood in America has explained to us, in somewhat lofty but stark terms, is clear.  They exist in America to overthrow our American civilization, our Constitutional order and replace it with an Islamic civilizational model.  As an individual "citizen" that sort of activity constitutes sedition.  As an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, its adherents and its enablers, should be considered part of a latent insurgency, engaging in protracted mobilization with clear potential of military capabilities.  

Again FM 3-24:
"Stated another way, an insurgency is an organized, protracted politico-military struggle designed to weaken the control and legitimacy of an established government, occupying power, or other political authority while increasing insurgent control."
Their campaign plan describes the structure and organizations of its network, its subversive intent and reflects its political and colonization activism to "increase insurgent control."

• The Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated and derivative organizations should be considered a single entity for purposes of analysis and law enforcement.
The Muslim Brotherhood ideology and human network is the thread binding their macro organization together in terms of leadership and direction, while the affiliated and spin-off organizations serve as nodes and perform functional and specialized roles in line with the general strategic concept of building enclave Islamic communities and performing jihad-oriented tasks.  Consider the way law enforcement treats organized crime. Individuals and subordinate organizations of known mafias are not viewed and treated as separate and independent entities of the mafia organization. Why should the Brotherhood be treated any differently?
• The Muslim Brotherhood's strategic information warfare program seeks to, shape, influence, transform and ultimately destroy America's foundations, in order to leverage and Islamize American global influence for the establishment of a restored caliphate.
In this colonization approach the "Dawa" [the strategic communication messages] of the Brotherhood, serves to influence both national and local American culture, society, policies, and programs, while proselytizing and growing their jihad community in support of the grand strategic objective of a restored caliphate.
• The Muslim Brotherhood meets the foreign intelligence threshold requirements of DoD Directive 5240.1-R, the "procedures governing the activities of DoD intelligence components that affect United States persons"
This executive branch directive allows for the collection and retention by DoD of foreign intelligence information on US persons defined as US citizens, green card holders or legal aliens with legitimate visas.

Intelligence "may be collected by a DoD intelligence component only if it is necessary to the conduct of a function assigned the collecting component...." DoD can collect information freely given by consent, information publicly available and information deemed to be "foreign intelligence" if the US person meets any of these "foreign intelligence" criteria:
"a.  individuals reasonably believed to be officers or employees, or otherwise acting for or on behalf, of a foreign power;   b.  an organization reasonably believed to be owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a foreign power;  c.  persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities."
In its own documents, the Ikhwan in America has defined itself as a hostile threat to the American constitutional order. It has identified itself as a "foreign agent" of the greater global jihad, and exists as part of the transnational "Ikhwan Movement." The Holy Land Foundation trial has established evidence of material support to terrorism by Brotherhood entities and ties to international terrorism, namely Hamas and likely other jihad terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Therefore, the Muslim Brotherhood in America meets all three criteria of DoD Directive 5240.1-R.
• The Muslim Brotherhood in America crosses the Law Enforcement Agency "criminal predicate" threshold for the purpose of intelligence-led policing.
The Muslim Brotherhood by virtue of its activities constitutes a current and continuing "threat to public safety." Law enforcement intelligence is a distinct category from national security intelligence.  Law enforcement intelligence requires a "criminal predicate" or expectation of a violation of domestic laws commensurate with the protection of civil liberties.  The Muslim Brotherhood as a latent insurgency, as part of the global jihad espousing the ideology of jihadism to destroy American civilization, with objectives overlapping al-Qaida's and a history of material support to terrorism, should be presumed to be a current and continuing criminal racketeering activity.  They should be targeted just like the mafia.

No one talks about a "moderate" mafia.
• The Muslim Brotherhood in America is part of the radicalization infrastructure that supports the "phases of radicalization" described in the recently published NYPD Report, Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat.
The NYPD Report states,
"We now believe that it is critical to identify the al-Qaeda inspired threat at the point where radicalization begins."
By definition the Ikhwan in America came to these shores expressly identified with its religious roots and strategic objectives, and did not arrive here aiming to assimilate into America. In fact their stated goal is quite the opposite: to assimilate America into the Caliphate.



We have laws against sedition. They will be enforced.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alliance of Patriots
Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 11:03 pm:   

Ivan,

You hit the nail on the head. This is what faces the peoples of Europe.

The Alliance of Patriots fought its fight with freedom of speech and through the electoral process. It did so to defend our rights as a democratic nation to hold our leaders accountable.

The Alliance of Patriots saw that the war in Iraq distracted us from our true fight against the forces of Jihad.

We bogged our army down in Iraq, and lost much of our international respect because of it. In doing so we played into the hands of the Jihadists.

We respect all religions but denounce the use of religion to mask sedition. We also denounce the use of force.

We support seperation of Church and State.

After the congressional elections we stood down our mission accomplished.

Our network still exists but lays sleeping just below the surface.

We watch and we wait.

We the Alliance of Patriots have demonstrated our ability to reach into the halls of power and obtain even the most guarded of information.

It is and never was our intent to make war upon Islam as a religion. However, the same abilities that delivered the President's and Putin's schedule and Scooter Libby's indictment to our chief of intelligence in broad daylight on the streets under the survellience of multiple intelligence and security services can be brought to bear on the Islamic organizations in the United States of Europe.

No Mosque, no Islamic Cultural Center or gathering place would be safe from our penetration.

Information found to be harmful to the United States and the nations of Europe would find its way to the authorities and press with the same ease that we exposed the flaws, mistakes and hypocrisy of the Republican Party that tried to impose one party rule on this nation.

To the Islamic People, since the begining of the Cold War well over a million of the best and brightest minds we had served in the Army of the United States. With its end those men and women moved into the federal government and private sector. It was this massive network of men and women that turned its fury upon the Republican Party for defying the will of the people.

In the end we the Alliance of Patriots brought down the Republicans like we did the Soviet Union. Peacefully in accordance with the laws.

The Islamic people should remember World War II and the words of the man that lead the attack on Pearl Harbor about waking the sleeping giant.

The Alliance of Patriots sleeps just below the surface.

We do not make threats or promises but will rise to defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.

To this end we have pledge our lives and our property.

Steering Committee, Alliance Of Patriots, Disbanded as of this 20th Day of September 2007, in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ

May God bless the United States and the Constitution for which is stands.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 07:39 am:   

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 08:43 pm: Ivan/sedition

Thanks Ivan. The above policy of the Muslim Brotherhood is an insult to God. All that a Muslim is expected to do is to bring the Principles of Islam to the notice of the non-Muslim. It is up to God to tune the hearts and not for any group of men.

God willing, we hope to establish that 'Shariah alone' is practicable inside the Arabian Peninsula only. Every where else 'Shariah alone' leads to chaos in society. Let us not forget that an apostate has the freedom to live in a place outside the Arabian Peninsula. Any place that has 'Sharia alone' by necessity must execute an apostate. That means we deny the freedom of faith. Leave God to handle the apostates outside the Arabian Peninsula.

There is nothing called 'Civilization Jihad.' Jihad is valid and required only to defend the oppressed and to defend a Muslim state under attack. It is perversity to claim that the US Constitution attacks Muslim faith. Don't forget that the freedom of faith guaranteed by the US Constitution is the same in spirit as 2:256 of the Holy Quran.

The Muslims in America need to understand their religion hopefully by self study and not be carried away by slogans. We pray to God to guide all of us --- Muslims and non-Muslims --- to exist in peace.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 07:46 am:   

No Mosque, no Islamic Cultural Center or gathering place would be safe from our penetration.

Information found to be harmful to the United States and the nations of Europe would find its way to the authorities and press with the same ease that we exposed the flaws, mistakes and hypocrisy of the Republican Party that tried to impose one party rule on this nation.
Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 11:03 pm: Alliance of Patriots

A place of worship should be used for just that - worship. This is in particular true of the Masjids.

We hope God helps the Alliance of Patriots in exposing those who misuse the sanctity of a Masjid to plot any act related to worldly affairs.

I hope and believe that the members of the 'disbanded steering committee' keep in touch with each other informally so that there would be no delay in formally launching the Alliance of Patriots on a future date.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/peace
Posted on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 08:45 pm:   

What if they gave a war and nobody came?

what_if_they_gave_a_war.gif
1969, Beshi, peace poster

We once had a poster like that, back in those Beatle days hanging on the wall of our 'hippy' pad in the Fenway (I wonder if Heather remembers it, or is my memory faulty now?), and it captured something of the times: "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" What if?... How would the powers of authority respond?

Today, it's perhaps more like "What if they gave a Jihad and nobody came?" The grievances against power can go either way, for war or against war, but what if the powers, whether secular or religious, gave orders to kill and nobody did? Is that not the very best deterrent of war imagined, that nobody wants to play that party game any more?

The powers that protect our human liberties are not the same as the powers that take them away. What if?... is a question of power. Whose power? We the people, or they the 'authorities'? Does it matter? What if the authorities are wrong, and we the people are right? Then if 'they' gave a war, we would not come, except to protect our rights as the people, a free people, and then we would fight to the death. This was missing in that poster all that long naive time ago: "What if they gave a war, and the people said: Give us the power to fight back, not you!" We will fight only for Peace, not war, because only "We the People" as a free people have the power to stop war.

There was a curious question asked of peaceniks back then: "What if someone held a gun to your wife's head, would you fight?" And the answer was not immediately understood then, but it would have been: "Seek third party mediation, and if that fails, then you are forced to fight coercion, or surrender in submission to their evil." Never submit.


Peace "V" Brother
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 07:36 am:   

Civilian Control of the Military

When Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear the Army because it wouldn’t defer the service of one of McCarthy’s staff aides, the entire civilian and Defense Department structures, after four years of fearful servitude, rose up against McCarthy and said “enough” and buried him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20896378/page/2/

Once before in America did the actions of Political leader cause the Military/Industrial complex to rebell against a political leader.

I have observed and analyzed the leaks of information to the media that discredited and brought down the republicans and have concluded that an alliance of men and women did coordinate them.

This happened once before with Senator Joseph McCarthy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#The_Army-McCarthy_hearings

The Army-McCarthy hearings

Roy Cohn and Senator McCarthy conferring during the Army-McCarthy hearings.Main article: Army-McCarthy hearings
Early in 1954, the U.S. Army accused McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, of pressuring the army to give favorable treatment to G. David Schine, a former aide to McCarthy and a friend of Cohn's. McCarthy claimed that the accusation was made in bad faith, in retaliation for his questioning of Zwicker the previous year. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, usually chaired by McCarthy himself, was given the task of adjudicating these conflicting charges. Republican Senator Karl Mundt was appointed to chair the committee, and the Army-McCarthy hearings convened on April 22, 1954.

The hearings lasted for 36 days and were broadcast on live television, with an estimated 20 million viewers. After hearing 32 witnesses and two million words of testimony, the committee concluded that McCarthy himself had not exercised any improper influence on behalf of David Schine, but that Roy Cohn had engaged in "unduly persistent or aggressive efforts." The committee also concluded that Army Secretary Robert Stevens and Army Counsel John Adams "made efforts to terminate or influence the investigation and hearings at Fort Monmouth," and that Adams "made vigorous and diligent efforts" to block subpoenas for members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board "by means of personal appeal to certain members of the [McCarthy] committee."

Far more important to McCarthy than the committee's inconclusive final report was the effect the extensive exposure had on his popularity. Many in the audience saw him as bullying, reckless and dishonest, and the daily newspaper summaries of the hearings were also frequently unfavorable to McCarthy.[57][58] Late in the hearings, Senator Stuart Symington made an angry but prophetic remark to McCarthy: "The American people have had a look at you for six weeks," he said. "You are not fooling anyone."[59] In Gallup polls of January 1954, 50% of those polled had a positive opinion of McCarthy. In June, that number had fallen to 34%. In the same polls, those with a negative opinion of McCarthy increased from 29% to 45%.[60] An increasing number of Republicans and conservatives were coming to see McCarthy as a liability to the party and to anti-communism. Congressman George H. Bender noted "There is a growing impatience with the Republican Party. McCarthyism has become a synonym for witch-hunting, star chamber methods and the denial of...civil liberties." Frederick Woltman, a reporter with a long-standing reputation as a staunch anti-communist, wrote a five-part series of articles criticizing McCarthy in the New York World-Telegram. He stated that McCarthy "has become a major liability to the cause of anti-communism," and accused him of "wild twisting of facts and near facts [that] repels authorities in the field."[61]

The most famous incident in the hearings was an exchange between McCarthy and the army's chief legal representative, Joseph Welch. On June 9, the 30th day of the hearings, Welch challenged Roy Cohn to provide U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. with McCarthy's list of 130 Communists or subversives in defense plants "before the sun goes down." McCarthy stepped in and said that if Welch was so concerned about persons aiding the Communist Party, he should check on a man in his Boston law office named Fred Fisher, who had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild, which Attorney General Brownell had called "the legal mouthpiece of the Communist Party." In an impassioned defense of Fisher that some have suggested he had prepared in advance,[62] Welch responded, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness[...]" When McCarthy resumed his attack, Welch interrupted him: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" He then left the room to loud applause from the spectators, and a recess was called.

I post this here as and illustration of how the United States and its institutions deals with extreamists
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/balance
Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 06:20 pm:   

Checks and Balances -- Army-McCarthy hearings.

250px-Maccari-Cicero.jpg
Roman Senate (interactive)

You bring up an important principle of our American democracy, that there exist 'checks and balances' between our Military-executive Branch, Judiciary system, and the people as represented by Congress. During the above mentioned hearings, there is a very telling quote:

quote:

Late in the hearings, Senator Stuart Symington made an angry but prophetic remark to McCarthy: "The American people have had a look at you for six weeks," he said. "You are not fooling anyone."[59] In Gallup polls of January 1954, 50% of those polled had a positive opinion of McCarthy. In June, that number had fallen to 34%. In the same polls, those with a negative opinion of McCarthy increased from 29% to 45%.


This encapsulates the way the whole issue with the McCarthy era Communist witch-hunt culminated as discredited in the eyes of the populace, or more specifically the polity, on which our form of government by consensus of the people is based. The Greek polity of Athens was perhaps the first of its kind, which contrasted markedly with ancient times where potentates ruled with absolute power. I was recently watching a documentary on ancient civilization, and in Egypt pharaoh ruled as a god with absolute power. By the time of Romans and Greeks, this power had been redirected to include the rights of individuals to constitute rule by consensus, or democratic republican rule, which is the form of government inherited and perfected by modern western civilization. Though, the ancient potentate rule still exists in many forms of government, such as the dictatorships of Africa and the Middle East, as well as central Asia, where the will of the people does not count for much in how the government functions, except they are the ones to be kept under strict control. In these potentate states, the will of the ruler becomes a kind of cult worship, where his image is projected larger than life to hold everyone in submission and awe. We of the west no longer do this, and had not since the days of kings.

What democratic governments have evolved into, such as our American government, is an endorsement by the people through the democratic process of elections for the rule of law, which constitutes our constitutional government. This rule of law is further checked upon by the 'checks and balances' we all learned about in grade school. The Judiciary does not answer to either the military or Executive branch, and only indirectly to Congress because they pass the laws on which the judicial system must interpret the rules. The 'balance of power' between these three primary branches of our government then act as checks on any 'potentate' ambitions of anyone within the government, which in turn guarantees rule of law and honors the will of the people. So in the McCarthy era there was a danger that such balance of power, as insulating our constitution government from potentate ambitions, in this case McCarthy's, immediately came into play, which was further reinforced by responsible journalism of the time. So when polls found the American people were not accepting these witch-hunts of alleged Communists in our society, the tide turned back towards a democratic form of government with the normal balance of power. This was in principle a significant historic event, because it saved the Republic when its natural balance of power was challenged. More recently a similar challeng came from Richard Nixon. However, I fail to see the above MSNBC article's Olbermann, as to how President Bush's calling on his subordinate, Petraeus, a general to the Commander in Chief, to explain the current Iraqi situation falls under the same historic context. That is just petty politics, not a principle shattering event, in my opinion.

These are things, or principles, peoples not living under our form of government have difficulty understanding. Instead, they think in simple terms that a mere majority rules. But this is not true, because though the majority may influence national policy and events, as much as any public opinion poll can influence events indirectly, the direct power of government is not in the hands of the masses but in the hands of the constitutional rule of law checked by its natural balances, the separation of powers. Think how complex this ideology actually is, as opposed to a simple ideology of a god-like potentate rule, or even a theocratic rule by the laws of some allegedly god-given scriptures. Their simple minded rule of the scripture laws, or the word of some prophet or potentate, have no checks and balances, so they rule with despotic powers. Most of the Islamic states that are not secular rule by this method, where the polity must obey in total submission to their ruler potentates, or be punished. There is no redress against injustice, except to comply. By contrast, a polity of constitutional government, where the will of the people is checked against the rule of law, and though they may influence one another through the legislative process and elections, they cannot dominate on either side into becoming despotic. This balance of power is central to how our governments work, and why under this kind of rule the McCarthy styled despotism becomes unlikely to succeed. Our military is checked as much as any of the other branches of government, by design to ensure rule of law.

We will once again be challenged by this rule of law cum balance of power governmental model when a similar time arises with challenging the 'enemy within' from Islamic extremists, who are inimicable to our freedoms and rule of law. We already are very close to this time now, though at present this is still in the formative stages, so not yet full blown investigations. The Holy Land Foundation trial is a first glimpse of where this is likely to be headed. However, as the past McCarthy era abuse of power had shown, this will not likely repeat itself, even if the enemy within desires a potentate like government, or Sharia, to replace our US Constitution. Of course, this will never happen, because it cannot under our balance of power system of government. Instead, they will be checked and bounced out of the country if they persist. It is important for the extremists to understand that we have a much more durable system of government than their god-dictated potentate style of government, and unless the nation regresses into total imbecility, there is no way we are going back to the days of the pharaohs. Rather, it is for them to catch up and modernize their thinking, and how to rule by a balance of power. That remains to be seen if they can, or are perpetually stuck with their ancient tyrannies.

Thanks Anon, nice stuff. Let's watch for similar developments in modern times, such as you pointed out involving military and judicial services. We are up against an enemy that understands none of this, so expect to be challenged both legally and illegally.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 09:24 pm:   

Good Point Ivan,

I disagreed with the MSNBC article but it raised in my mind the linkages we saw in the events that brought down the Republican Party.

The McCarthy hearings occured amost 60 years ago. Since then American society has evolved. This coupled to the rise of the Interent and biased media outlets that support one party over another lead to the rise of a decentralized group that challanged the stranglehold the Republican single party rule government had on the institutions of government. This group fought this hold with coordinated, timed leeks of information that were targeted at exposing the failures and bias of the Republican Government.

I included the material on McCarthy to put this event into historical context.

Thanks for the comments
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 11:37 pm:   

This is a simplistic comment.

General Petraeus said he wrote his report. What if some one gave him hints on what the report is to say?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/ikhwan
Posted on Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 12:06 pm:   

Ikhwan, the Holy Land Foundation trial, and where do we go from here?

ikhwan.gif

This is from the home page of the Muslim Brotherhood, organization and objectives:

Al-Ikhwan has branches in over 70 countries all over the world. The movement is flexible enough to allow working under the "Ikhwan" name, under other names, or working according to every country's circumstances. However, all Ikhwan groups, in all countries are characterized by the following with respect to their method [3]:
1- Following the Salaf: Rejecting any action or principle which contradicts the Quran or Sunna, and inviting people to nothing but them both.
2- Establishing the Sunna: Working -as much as possible- to spread the Sunna in every aspect of life.
3- Increasing the Iman: By concentrating on the purity of hearts, loving Muslims in the sake of Allah, and remembrance (plus being away of any Sufi mistakes).
4- Political Activism: By putting political programs for "Islamising" government in different countries (after realistic studies), and establishing these programs thru the convenient ways which do not conflict with Islam.
5- Stressing Physical Health: By forming sports clubs and committing members to regular exercises.
6- Enriching Scientific Study: By enhancing the knowledge of members and others about Islam. Members with "Shari'a" major have special study programs.
7- Establishing a Sound Economic Infrastructure: By supporting and/or sponsoring any Islamic project and facing its "fiqh" problems. By the way, the ONLY accepted source of money to the Ikhwan is its members' OWN money [3].
8- Fostering Social ties: By maintaining brotherhood links among the members of the Islamic society.

A huge tree of "sub-goals" branches from these main objectives which are derived from the Quran and the tradition of the prophet (pbuh) [3,4]:
1- Building the Muslim individual: brother or sister with a strong body, high manners, cultured thought, ability to earn, strong faith, correct worship, conscious of time, of benefit to others, organized, and self-struggling character [3].
2- Building the Muslim family: choosing a good wife (husband), educating children Islamicaly, and inviting other families.
3- Building the Muslim society (thru building individuals and families) and addressing the problems of the society realistically.
4- Building the Muslim state.
5- Building the Khilafa (basically a shape of unity between the Islamic states).
6- Mastering the world with Islam.
Objectives 1 to 4 are parallel and interlinked, and continuous even after reaching 4, 5 or 6.

The Holy Land Foundation trial is uncovering some disturbing information about these Muslim Brotherhood goals, as they apply to establishing the 'building the Khalifa' and 'mastering the world with Islam', which in the United States of America would call for Sharia replacement of our US Constitution.

Here is an independent 'anonymous' analysis of how this conquest of our western civilization, the 'civilization-jihad' Ikhwan, would take place, hypothetically, in four steps:
Stages of Islamization

STAGE ONE: INFILTRATION
• First migration wave to target non-Muslim society.
• Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the target non-Muslim society.
• Characterized by professed tolerance of others and their beliefs.
• Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion and Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism.
• Images of women and children used to portray Muslims.
• Establishment of mosques as power bases (today globally funded by Gulf countries oil revenue). (Mosques are safe havens for Jihadi recruitment and subversive projects).
• Muslim leaders promote large push for increased Muslim births in target non-Muslim society to increase native Muslim population...

STAGE TWO: CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
• Proselytizing efforts increase.
• Establishment and recruitment of fundamentalist Jihadi cells.
• Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population of target non-Muslim society to Islam.
• Revisionist efforts to Islamize history.
• Efforts to destroy all evidence of incriminating historical evidence and sources that reveal true character of Islamism.
• Intellectual Jihad to discredit non-Muslim culture.
• Assault on cultural assumptions and icons of the non-Muslim world, such as democracy, law and science.
• Increased dissemination of anti-western propaganda and anti-western psychological warfare.
• Efforts to recruit allies who share similar goals (Communists, socialists, anti westerns activists, anti-globalists, anarchists).
• Alliances with the enemies of the Western society particularly anti capitalism leftists. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
• Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint. Efforts to infiltrate education system to propagate pro-Islamic points of view.
• Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslim intellectuals and leaders.
• Efforts to introduce blasphemy laws into non-Muslim society in order to silence critics.
• Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and migration to target non-Muslim society.
• Use of first and second generation Muslim citizens of target non-Muslim society as Jihadist foot soldiers and public fronts.
• Use of charities to recruit supporters.
• Use of crime and fraud to obtain funds to finance activities.
• Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of non-Muslim society from within.
• Development of Muslim political base in target non-Muslim society. Efforts to penetrate political and legal structure of country so as to support Islamic growth from within...

STAGE THREE: OPEN WAR WITH TARGET NON-ISLAMIST SOCIETY'S LEADERSHIP AND
CULTURE ...
• Rejection and defiance of target society secular laws or culture.
• Murder of all opposition political, religious and intellectual leaders of target society.
• Murder of all moderate Muslim intellectuals who envision other alternatives to radical Islam.
• Toppling of government and usurpation of political power.
• Imposition of Sharia law.

STAGE FOUR: ISLAMIC THEOCRACY
• The Qur’an and the Sharia becomes the "law of the land. "
• All non-Islamic human rights cancelled.
• Freedom of speech and the press eradicated....

Now compare this with the Muslims Brotherhood's own agenda:
Establishing the Islamic government:

Al-Ikhwan believe that ruling a government should be the step which follows preparing (most of) the society for accepting the Islamic laws. Otherwise, ruling a totally corrupt society thru a militant government-overthrow is a great risk [5]. Preparing the society is achieved thru plans for: spreading the Islamic culture, the possible media means, mosques, and da'wa work in public organizations such as syndicates, parliaments, student unions, ... [6]. Parallel to that, distinct muslims should be trained to administer political, economical, social, and student organizations efficiently (and Islamically), as another preparation step. Moreover, the Ikhwan don't demand the rule for themselves; they welcome any leader who wants to establish a TRUE Islamic government to have all the Ikhwanic support and help. ...
This is not mere coincidence, but part of a plan and execution strategy.


For more on this Holy Land Foundation trial issue, see Hot Air: The Muslim Brotherhood’s plans to seize the US become trial evidence.

This is an unfolding story which will be played out over and over again throughout the civilized free world, from Australia to Finland, same as in America. Watch what happens next... These will be known as the 'Ikhwan trials', expect them well into the future.

Understanding the threat is the first Deterrence to war, and peace through reason.


Ivan

(For a counterbalanced view see post on Ismailism.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anonymous
Posted on Monday, September 24, 2007 - 12:18 am:   

Propaganda piece from NYT?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/23/nyt.moveon/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Gen. Petraeus integrety question in an... "ad'?

One wonders why these ads are not better moderated by the Times staff.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, September 24, 2007 - 05:32 am:   

As you point out Ivan,

We shifted aim from the primary target in the War on Terror by ignoring and failing to publicise in the Main Stream media the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and its related Al-Ikhwan movement.

We are locked in and ideological struggle against the forces of Islam extreamism. However, out of fear of offending the Islamic peoples of the world who do little if not anything at all at fighting this scourge, we fail to clearly publicise the nature of the evil we face.

In invading Iraq we played into the hands of the extreamsists, who use the war there for propaganda purposes.

Out of frustration with this failure and the war in Iraq, many groups in the west have emerged to contest the policies and position statements of the current administration.

This groups range from those that believe that Islamics are misunderstood and victims, to those that see Islamic extreamists as the threat they are.

For what ever reason the President committed us to a lengthy war in Iraq. In a simplistic world toppling Iraq would have been like setting dominos in motion. The reality has been something else.

At least hear we can have a discussion of the true nature of the threat we face, free from extreme viewpoints and posturing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/evil landed
Posted on Monday, September 24, 2007 - 08:23 pm:   

War of Ideas?

gal_frontpage_0924.jpg
Ahmadinejad on front cover -(ineractive)- NY Daily News

Not Michael Caine, or Robert Duval and Don Sutherland, is he? Certainly no Winston Churchill.

The controversy over having Mahmoud talk at Columbia University is actually misplaced. He is welcome to talk anywhere he wants. But will anyone believe him anymore? I personal don't, since any word coming from his mouth to me is a lie, or twisted evasive deceits of the truth to suit his agenda (while he accuses us of that!) so it's irrelevant what he says. The man speaks with his eyes, and nothing else needs be said. Just look at those small eyes darting with lies. How did he start his speech? With a 'bed time' story about the Madhi? I would have gone to sleep right there, except the lies would have kept me awake like a bad dream.

Contrast this with Burma's demonstration by Buddhist monks, and Pakistani 'Rage Boy':

_44135066_placards_afp_203i.jpgcapt.bb53b30e82e34d6b87ae51d853725e46.india_kashmir_protest_rmx105.jpg

A contrast of elegance and rage (interactive)

This is a war of ideas, of style, of beliefs, and the Iran president represents the wrong style and wrong ideas. His wanting to visit Ground Zero is odious, and laughable were it not painful, that this narrow minded man who probably believes in conspiracy theories that (though Bin Laden already took credit, and the public in Islamic countries ululated with glee) we somehow did 9/11 to ourselves. How bizarre and sick, for this ignorant little man to want to lay a wreath there, without any understanding of human sensitivities. Or as Michael Goodwin said in the Daily News: "What can we learn from a monster?" That pretty much wraps it up for me too.

It would be a war of ideas if that small monster had any. He lies, he's a slave sock-puppet for his mullahs, so what does it matter what he says? We will win this war because we mean what we say, and we say what is true, not some twisted Madhist reality. And our ideas are strong willed and free. He perhaps had seen "The Eagle Has Landed", but he should really watch "300" to see what stuff we are made of. We are the free, and much tougher than those who live on bended knee.

War of ideas are a strong deterrent only if the other side is intelligent. In this case, this is a big unknown if truth be known, because he has none.

Bloggers express some of their ideas here and here. Join the fun.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/UN summit
Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 12:18 am:   

Extremism will be buried in the annals of history.

BBC News on UN meeting of country leaders: UN General Assembly in New York

_44135992_unclimatesummit_afp203b.jpg


quote:

US President George W Bush used his 15 minutes at the podium to highlight human rights violations around the world, highlighting Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran.

The central theme of the US president's speech was the struggle against extremism.

He focused on the themes that have dominated much of his presidency: the need to spread freedom, to reward advocates of democracy and to isolate regimes whose policies run counter to what he sees as the tide of history.

Mr Bush contrasted those who were seeking the path of democracy: Lebanon, Iraq and those he dubbed moderate or mainstream Palestinian leaders, as opposed to the leadership of North Korea, Syria and Iran.



Note "extremism" is what needs to be fought worldwide. Intelligent men and women understand this now, and we must not shy away from the task at hand. Freedom will rule the world, and despotic tyranny will be buried in the annals of history.

Key quotes at UN Summit Meeting, though personally I find this list lacking, and seriously incomplete.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 07:41 pm:   

Cell phones, Web spread news of Myanmar
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_as/myanmar_media

In their peaceful rebellion against tyranny the students of Myanmar and youngsters have followed the lead of the peaceful monks.

They have leveraged cell phones and the internet from internet cafes, dorms and at home to coordinate protests against tyranny. They pass information about road blocks, troop movements and shooting of protestors. They send photos of brutality around the globe from cell phone camera's.

The Alliance of Patriots, the fusion of Christians, students, civil servants and ex-military personnel that formed one of the most powerful distributed networks in the world, that also brought the Bush Administration to its knees and brought two party rule back to this nation with leaks has shown the way for Myanmar.

God Bless the steering comittee of the Alliance of Patriots. They have shown the way to bring about peaceful revolution and leverage the power of information warfare.

Scientia Potentia Est, (For also knowledge itself is power)

Long live the men and women of the Alliance of Patriots. They have shown the true path to freedom without guns, bombs and killing
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The Poet
Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 08:13 pm:   

Two men stood toe to toe

One in the limelight and in the shadows

One had control of the resources of a government

The other nothing but a medals tarnished and bent

With nothing but his skills at shadow war

Did this old soldier give rise to rebellion on foreign shores

While a president postured and twisted his position

Did this soldier to the people listen

And he did embark on on final mission

Now that mission is well and truely done

Have others on mission in Myanmar just begun
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Burma
Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 12:18 am:   

The military Burmese/Myanmar rulers cannot control information.

You are so right Anon. As it says in the article you referenced:

quote:

Mary Callahan, a Myanmar expert at the University of Washington, said by e-mail that "In 1988, it was relatively simple for the military to shut down railroads, set up road checkpoints and cut phone lines, which made it quite difficult for protesters to organize. Now, of course, protesters can use both the Internet and cell phones to mobilize support internally and externally."

Din agreed, saying, "The junta can't control the technology totally, and it's a huge difference to deliver the information fast."



Technology is opening up windows as never before. Imagine Tianemen Square nearly two decades ago. We're getting the pictures:

_44140813_smoke203newiap.jpg_44137900_monks_index.jpg

Buddhist monks, reports from inside Rangoon (interactive), bloggers speak

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/mad mahdi
Posted on Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 02:08 pm:   

Iran prepares for war, and return of the hidden 12th Imam.

Will the 12th Imam cause war with Iran?

It would appear Iran wants war, desperately, to fulfill prophecy.

quote:

Many people believe the greatest threat to world peace concerns Iran's nuclear programme, so there was understandably great interest at this week's general assembly in New York when the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, took the platform.

But instead of seeking to reassure delegates that Iran's nuclear intentions were purely benign, Mr Ahmadinejad took advantage of his official visit to a country deemed – in the lexicon of the Iranian Revolution – "the Great Satan" to embark on a discourse about the wonders of the 12th Imam.



The Iran president disappointed his UN audience. Mr. Ahmadinejad was a former Revolutionary Guard commander, so it can be understood his displeasure with the present commander of the Guard, the Islamic Revolution's storm troopers, when he spoke the truth:

quote:

Mr Safavi, who commanded the guards for 10 years, is understood to have fallen out with Mr Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's spiritual leader, after he argued that the guards were too weak to repel an attack from abroad.

Mr Safavi was also criticised within the regime for failing to establish effective supply lines between Teheran and Hizbollah, the Iranian-funded militia in southern Lebanon. A train carrying vital military supplies for Hizbollah from Iran to Syria blew up in mysterious circumstances last May in northern Turkey, severely disrupting Iran's attempts to re-arm Hizbollah following last year's war with Israel.



They're touchy about the subject of their internal weaknesses, both militarily and socio-economically, but they keep supplying their Hezbollah proxies in Iraq and Lebanon. While they push for the bomb, and dream of their Mahdi, and their slavery Sharia peace in the world, let them believe whatever fictions they want. When the war shows their weakness in reality, this will be in our favor. They can then cry 'the great Satan' defeated them, but it is all idiotic mythology with no moorings in reality. Never let Iran have the bomb, they are socio-religiously immature and suicidal. They want that nuclear bomb so bad, because it fulfills their mad destiny. What they fail to understand is that it will fulfill their ultimate total destruction instead. No Mahdi, sorry to disappoint. But Death will greet them en masse if they persist with their nuclear bomb adventures. Deterrence here is not to show weakness, ever.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/jihad4ever
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 12:00 am:   

Islam Warmachine.


180px-JihadTheIslamicDoctrineOfPermanentWar.jpg

This is from an old post, back in days of hope and naivete:
"REFORM ISLAM - my analysis of how, nine points.

What went wrong with Islam? -The Caliphs.
Can it Reform? -Yes.

Here is the progression, how I think an error crept into God's words to Mohammed:
• God can only teach us of Love and Peace
• Mohammed gets inspired revelations from God
• "Allah is all Merciful and Compassionate", a religion of love in the heart
• Mohammed tells his companions, while alive he teaches them
• Upon his death, Caliphs write down their version of God's words
• Mohammed's words of love and compassion, of the heart, are turned into words of control and warfare
• This contorting of God's Love into human Power is a grave sin against God's words to Mohammed
• Man now has the most powerful weapon of God's contorted words turned into raw power, for the Caliphs
• This power spreads its corrupt version of God's word, through warfare, piracy, intimidation, persecution, and cultural genocide, until we have today's imperialistic Jihad

The real Jihad is NOT suicide bombers killing innocent men and women and children in Israel, or New York, or Bali or Beslan, or London or Madrid or Casablanca or Istanbul, Sharm al Sheik or Nairobi or Manila, or Mecca, or Baghdad or.. No, these are the profaned versions of the word of God, for the power hungry, those who twist the human heart into evil, and profanely use human fodder to kill. The real Jjihad is to reform Islam back to God's words to Mohammed. The real Jjihad is a struggle with evil, that which contorted God's message to His messenger, a message of Love and Peace and Compassion. That is the REAL Islam. Reform starts here: Quran 2:256.

God Willing, these reforms will come to pass, and God's Love is once again supreme to the faith, where Islam does not mean 'submission' to the Caliphs imperialism, but rather Freedom and Peace for all human beings equally, men and women, as given to us by God."

But this tells a grimmer picture of Jihad warmachine:

Chronology of early Islam: http://www.islamundressed.com/#_Toc113793215

Jihad chronology 1961-2003: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

List of wars in Muslim world, from Muhammad to today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world

Another list of Muslim warmachine:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15311&start=0

Read and weep. All those massacred souls will come back to haunt them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/freedom
Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 02:22 am:   

We Who are Free.

Each thing we do is like a wave upon the sea, we see it coming and then pass us by, to either raise us up or toss us down, to then crash upon the shore. Who is to judge what was we had done was good, but those who are free? Let Freedom ring.

This was brought to my attention by our friend Mohideen, on the end of Ramadan and President Bush's speech. I list it here, for free men and women to judge.

20071004-9_wf1g0909-250h.jpg
President Bush Attends Iftaar Dinner at the White House (interactive)


quote:

Today, our world is at war with violent extremists who seek to tear the fabric of our society -- and stop the advance of freedom in Muslim societies around the world. They attack holy sites, destroy mosques and minarets, and kill innocent men, women and children -- including Muslims who do not share their radical views. They believe that by spreading chaos and violence they can frustrate the desire of Muslims to live in freedom and peace. We say to them, you don't represent Muslims, you do not represent Islam -- and you will not succeed.




Let Freedom ring, in the universality of freedom.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/resistance
Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 11:03 am:   

Give war a chance? - Deterrence of mass killings... with war?


400px-Armeniangenocide_deadpeople.jpg
Armenian Genocide, dead civilians

From BBC News: Can the world stop genocide?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7043411.stm


quote:

Give war a chance?

So what is Mr Prunier's solution?

"Genocides can only be stopped by the people directly involved - and usually that means people involved in the war that accompanies most mass killings."

And if it is the government committing the genocide, the solution is "arm the rebels", he says.

"It won't be clean - it will be messy," the French author said, "but it is more likely to stop the mass killing than international intervention."

To a large extent, Mr Prunier has history on his side. The Holocaust only ended when the allies destroyed Hitler's regime.

The killing fields of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge were only stopped when the Vietnamese army moved in. And the genocide in Rwanda only ended when the Tutsi rebels overthrew the extremist Hutu regime.



Is it better to debate and dialogue by international community while the killing fields fill with dead? Or is it better to arm the people who are being killed? Is resistance not better than dialogue when meeting aggression?

"War" is a bad word to most of us, as it should be. But we do not have an epistemological difference between "aggressive war" and "defensive war" in our languages. Every human being has "the right of self defense" whether or not an international community debates the issues of war. War can be prevented, or at least deterred, with arms for those who must defend themselves. The Resistance against Nazi occupation in Europe may or may not have turned the tide of history, but it helped block Nazi designs for extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Easterners, handicapped, etc. And certainly the Resistance helped the Allies win the war against Nazi aggression.

Force that is hostile to our right to exist must be met with force. Coercions are averted by stopping coercions, but this requires at times the use of force, not appeasement to those who kill. Today we are faced with a new threat, though in fact very ancient, from a theologically driven Nazi-like aggression against all the peoples of the world who do not think like they do, or have failed to submit to their aggressive ideology. We who are the Free do not submit, we resist.

Semantics aside, "resistance" is what must be done to prevent this religious fanaticism war, and all future wars. Genocide is what war does, it kills people, lots of them. Behind the mass statistics of the dead, hundreds and thousands, and millions, lived a human being who refused to submit to tyranny and attack. Each such human being is worth defending.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

INFOWAR
Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 03:31 pm:   

Use of Information as a Weapon

During the Cold War the Soviets developed the concept of the Reconnaissance and Destruction and Reconnaissance and Strike Complex. These complexes were linkages of intelligence centers whose purpose was to identify deep high value targets for destruction by artillery, missiles or aircraft. Given onto these centers was control of deep strike assets. The centers were designed to accept feeds from all available intelligence assets in order to identify and prioritize targets for engagement.

In the modern age of digital communications, mass media and twenty four hour news coverage information has taken on a new dimension. As evidenced by Abu Griab, disclosures of scandalous behavior and the revealing of state violation of human rights, information can have a tremendous impact on a society. The recent congressional elections in the United States serve as one example of the impact that such information can have on a society.

In this new age it is possible to induce change in a society through the controlled release of information. As seen in the last Congressional elections, the timing and sequence of the release of adverse information on the actions and failures of the current administration greatly contributed to its loss of Congressional control. Specific information releases such as the Foley scandal had, what might be argued, the same psychological effect as the employment of a weapon of mass destruction. Fallout from the information release also had an effect very similar to that of a weapon of mass destruction in that it contaminated those in proximity to it.

Couple information releases of the magnitude of the Foley scandal to analysis centers staffed by specialists in various disciplines such as Political Science, Psychology and Cultural Anthropology and you in effect recreate the old Soviet Reconnaissance and Destruction Complexes. The difference between the two being one is a virtual construct and the other a physical construct. The military refers to this type of warfare as Information Warfare or Psychological Warfare. Couple this type of action with military operations or offensive cyber and electronic attacks and you have a force of great magnitude.

Should a group or individual gain access to or control of information such as the Foley Scandal, and those same individual then be given access to systems, networks and personnel capable of assessing and exploiting the effects of that release of information, that group or individual would be a force to be reckoned with.

In this age of digital communications it would be possible to construct a, “Virtual Reconnaissance and Destruction Complex” from anywhere on the globe via the Internet. Such is the future of war in this modern age. On this modern battlefield the ability to control information and its release becomes a strategic weapon, one capable of smashing a government or inducing social change.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

RUK & ROK
Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 04:55 pm:   

Precision missile forces & artillery systems: creating reconnaissance-strike and reconnaissance-fire systems
Military Thought, Jan-March, 2005 by S.I. Matveyev

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAP/is_1_14/ai_n15400322

"A RUK (ROK) system is a formation of missile (artillery) units (subunits) which organizationally, technically and functionally bring together the means of reconnaissance, guidance, command and control and effective engagement into a single loop that can carry out with precision and in an automatic mode the detection, target designation, targeting and scoring sure hits of enemy targets in the shortest time possible.

Every RUK (ROK) system should comprise subsystems to ensure its self-sufficiency: a subsystem of reconnaissance and targeting; a subsystem of guided weapons; a navigation-time support subsystem; a subsystem of control and a subsystem of special-technical and logistic support.

A theory describing interaction between these subsystems when the RUK (ROK) systems are being employed is as follows. The reconnaissance assets look for, detect, identify and measure the necessary parameters of targets inside the zone of the system's coverage. Data about detected targets is transmitted automatically to the center for data gathering and processing and control of the system. The center analyzes the data, compares them with the data received from other sources, makes decision to engage the targets, following which data necessary for organizing the engagement of the targets are transmitted to the weapon assets, the means that track the targets and guide the weapons. On command from the system control center, the precision weapon assets deliver strikes at the designated targets. At big distances from their targets, conventional warheads are guided by the reconnaissance subsystem's assets that track and guide weapons and, when they close in on their targets, they are guided by the homing heads installed on them.

It is advisable to initially create RUK systems and ROK systems in the form of separate units and subunits that are organic to combined-arms units and large strategic formations of the military districts with a mandatory assignment of RUK (ROK) systems to the reserves of the commanders of every military district. It should be possible for RUK (ROK) systems to closely cooperate with the other weapon assets of combined-arms units and large strategic units and, for the duration of operations, to be merged by special command and control systems into RV & A precision weapons groups. Such groups can include multirole RUK (ROK) systems of fronts and armies and specialized ROK systems of divisions and regiments.

Subsequently--as economic, technological, production and research potentials grow and as practical experience and skills of combat employment of the created system are gained--it would become possible to create a reconnaissance-fire system (ROS) of RV & A large strategic formations organizationally incorporating RUK (ROK) large strategic formations, combined-arms units and units with a unified automated control system. The creation of RV & A ROS in large strategic formations would substantially increase the effectiveness of engaging the enemy by fire and make it possible to slash the number of ordinary strike and fire assets in large strategic formations, reduce the number of pieces of ammunition and other materiel and cut transportation expenses of large strategic formations."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CYBER Weapons Test
Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 07:07 pm:   

Linked via the Internet and Digital Communications three modern universities formed the basis of a CYBER Reconnaissance and Strike Complex.

In concert with intelligence information derived from networks of agents built over four years by a Senior Intelligence Officer, coordinated releases of information were used to undermine the Republican's hold on power and end a period of single party rule in the United States. This was done peacefully in accordance with the provisions of the United States Constitution.

Communications regarding targeting data and the information obtained from collection operations was sent via a variety of commuications paths. No one channel of information carried the entire set of data. Radio, Telelvision, the Internet, Cell Phones, Text Messages, Direct Conversations, classroom discussions and research papers where used to channel information to the senior intelligence officer on the project. All techniques of covert communication taught by instructors at the United States Intelligence Center and School at Ft. Hauchuca Arizona were employed.

Targeting assessments in terms of impact and fallout from the proposed data releases were performed by senior faculty members. Once optimum conditions arose information was released to induce effects among the general population. These effects were intended to undermine support for the Republican machine that succeded in gaining control of the United States Government.

A succession of strikes were conducted in the period prior to the General Elections.

Post strike assessments were performed by one of the three universities involved in this engagement.

Data from this Cyber Weapons test is still being evaluated.

Informations regarding potential future targets is being developed.

Intial assessments of the effectiveness of this weapons test are very favorable.

Future enhancements being considered include improving the capablity to create virtual RUK and ROK complexes using handheld devices and access to the Internet from Internet cafes and home PCs.

Encryption techniques and data transmission protocals developed by the Senior Intelligence Officer on the program will be expanded and improved to increase reliability and exportability.

During the four years the Senior Intelligence officer has been working on the program he has had full and unfettered access to all available scientific and technical databases. Additionally he has had access to software engineers, computer systems and highspeed communications circuits. Access to satellight reconnaissance systems orbiting platforms and associated other data has also been made available.

Social/Cultural/Economic/Environmental databases have been included for integration into the target development process

Synthesis of this data is onging. As targetable information is developed it will be stored and evaluated for potential use.

End of Weapons Test Evaluation.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Info Ops
Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 08:44 pm:   

Information Operations (Info Ops)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare

Info Ops is an evolving discipline within the military. It has emerged from earlier concepts such as "Command & Control Warfare" and "Information Warfare" - mainly US dominated, originating in the 1990s and considering lessons learned from the Gulf War(s), phenomena like the so-called "CNN Effect", and the enormous advance in Information Technology.

Today Germany leads a multinational effort on developing Info Ops as an integrating function / joint mission area within the military, called the "Multinational Information Operations Experiment" (MNIOE). The current 20 MNIOE partners define Info Ops as "The advice to and co-ordination of military activities affecting information and information systems – including system behaviour and capabilities – in order to create desired effects." This definition - and its related context - differs from extant national views (e.g., the USA or GBR) and provides an advanced approach to multinational and interagency information activities in support of crisis management and effects-based operations.

Designing and implementing guidance for Coalition actions to affect information and information systems (information activities) is a challenge; it applies to the whole scope of civil-military efforts from pre-crisis situations to post-conflict reconstruction, and spans all levels of involvement.

Ongoing initiatives for Info Ops Concept Development and Experimentation (CD&E) are derived from the following problem statement:

Joint and combined warfighters lack integrated processes and organisation to plan, execute and assess effects-based information activities in a multinational and interagency context based on a comprehensive and systemic understanding of the operational environment using all available and appropriate means. In particular:

commanders and their staff lack the means, methods and training to gain and maintain appropriate situational awareness and understanding of the information environment;
commanders are often unaware of the scope and scale of options to affect information and/or information systems;
relevant co-ordination processes are not institutionalised, but rather depend on the personality of actors, occur by chance and/or erratically;
extant organisational structures often limit the flexibility of the force to adapt to mission and situation requirements;
commanders often do not realise the full scope of opportunities as well as risk associated with mainstream military actions and their potential to create effects on information and information systems;
military plans and operations are often inadequately integrated with civil information activities; the overall consistency of comprehensive Coalition efforts needs to be improved in this respect.
The MNIOE project will develop solutions to answer the following questions (CD&E issues):

How do we describe the characteristics of the information environment to support focused systemic analysis?
What means, methods and training do we need to gain a comprehensive and systemic understanding of the information environment?
How do we incorporate comprehensive, clear, and achievable guidance for Coalition information activities (Coalition Information Strategy) in the multinational interagency strategic planning process?
How do we translate and implement the Coalition Information Strategy for coordinated civil and military action at the operational level of command?
How can we identify, rate, and exploit the full spectrum of effects in the information environment and military information activities within a comprehensive approach?
How do we appropriately consider the opportunities and risks associated with effects in the information environment and mainstream military and civil actions?
How do we design and implement efficient and effective advice and co-ordination for planning, execution and assessment of military information activities?
How do we coordinate effects and activities related to the information environment amongst military and civil actors within a comprehensive approach?
How do we share information to enable efficient and effective multinational interagency planning for Coalition information activities?
How do we share information to enable efficient and effective execution and assessment of military and civil information activities?

The information posted above represents a snapshot of current military thought regarding Info Ops.

Due to training shortfalls and inability to visualize the battlespace, current military Info Ops are limited in effect.

The three universities involved in forming the Virtual Reconnaissance and Strike Complex unleased on the Republicans consisted of some of the finest minds on the planet. The concept for the formation of the complex and employment of the data was proposed by the Senior Intelligence Officer. Given the sensitivity of the project all activities relating to it were kept highly confidential. Coded transmissions were employed along with covert communications techniques.

Links to the pages in the Foley Scandal were established via links from the universities they attended. When needed the two pages in the scandal came forward and disclosed the information they had to the media.

Timing and disclosure of the information was coordinated to ensure maximum effect. Liason between the pages and Senior Intelligence Officer were established via student contacts and cutouts.

Other members of the Info Ops team have been previously identified on this site.

This data is being provide here in order to demonstrate a capability.

http://cicentre.com/counterintelligenceacademy/course/111.htm

Course 111

Clandestine Communication Techniques by Spies and/or Terrorists: Cyber Tradecraft

A CI perspective of how terrorists and spies use computers, encryption software, and the Internet for communication. Demonstrations and explanations are given of the latest steganographic tools for hiding encrypted messages inside images, music, and websites.

Recent espionage and terrorism cases are analyzed and the techniques used for encrypting and passing information are discussed and demonstrated. The goal of the course is to develop an understanding of how personal computers, encryption software, and the Internet have made it easier for terrorists and spies to communicate undetected. Both the capabilities and vulnerabilities of modern PC-based covert communication systems will be examined. [˝ day]

We used all of the above and older techniques to build the Virtual Reconnaissance and Strike Complex.

Our Senior Intelligence Officer was trained in all by the United States Army Intelligence Center and School. Then he was thrown to the wolves by the current president.

A mistake I am sure the current president regrets.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/info ops war
Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 08:54 pm:   

Deterring a determined, but ignorant, religious fanatical enemy with Info Ops.


quote:

Recent espionage and terrorism cases are analyzed and the techniques used for encrypting and passing information are discussed and demonstrated. The goal of the course is to develop an understanding of how personal computers, encryption software, and the Internet have made it easier for terrorists and spies to communicate undetected. Both the capabilities and vulnerabilities of modern PC-based covert communication systems will be examined. [˝ day]

We used all of the above and older techniques to build the Virtual Reconnaissance and Strike Complex.



This is the absolutely sure future of fighting against Jihad enemies, some of whom already live inside our borders, by out foxing them in their own game. We must build up this Info Ops system to be fully operational so no bits get missed in their evil planning stages, and swoop in before they can strike. Can we do this without violating our own citizens's rights to privacy? This is where it gets tricky. But to deter this hard bitten determined enemy of our freedoms, we may have to pay the price, a small price, of some of our freedoms held until the enemy is totally subdued. As the free world, we understand freedom and can always bring it back, but as slaves of the enemy, our freedoms would be permenantly lost. Our choice is clear. This is not a conventional war.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 09:46 pm:   

The Big Red One, and Sponge - we clean up, anywhere anyhow.

pedicure-~-u19583220.jpg

Q4:34 women assaulted? No problem, call the Big Red One, we're there.

Problem with Islamic Jihad? No problem, call us, give us names, Info Ops backup. We polish.

Human rights violations? Call Big Red, kicking butt. Darfur, Northern Province, Iran? We're there.

USArmy_First_Inf_Patch.jpg

North Africa, Sicily, Omaha Beach, we're there, fighting for your freedoms. We polish and kick butt, and don't sally around. You got problems with the Jihad Beast? Call us. Our motto is "We are the Four Horsemen." We scourge them devils.

le Chef - de guerre
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

INFO WAR
Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 11:45 pm:   

The concept of a virtual Virtual Reconnaissance and Strike Complex was employed against the Republicans in a free society in order to demonstrate a capability to induce change peacefully.

Data collection and analysis, coupled to covert operations, INFOWAR and network construction are critical to inducing peaceful change.

The technology and covert commuications techniques allowed the Universities to bring to bear enormous intellectual capital on the problem and accelerate and control change.

The trick with regards to enploying these techniques against the Jihadists is amassing the cultural and pyschological data necessary in order to do effective targeting.

An example of very effective INFOWAR used against the Iranians is as follows. During the bombing of Lybia a hotel was bombed by accident. An Iranian agent/terrorist was staying in the hotel. Ronald Regan had just made a speach about how you could run but note hide. The terrorist stepped out of the room to get something and as he did a bomb from one of the bombers used to smash Lybia came through the window and landed on the bed.

Following this the United States intelligence community let it be known that they could target individuals. This event detered Iran for a long time from launching direct terrorist acts against us.

Act such as this coupled to a Virtual Reconaissance and Strike Complex, one that could reach into the PCs and communications devices used by the terrorist cells and display a message on their screens in conjunction with additional actions coordinated by the Strike Complex would demosntrate a capability that would shock Jihadists to their core.

Such is the next phase of development of the Virtual Reconaissance and Strike Complex. This phase however needs to include the military in the developmental process.

What we have demonstrated with this weapons test is the ability to mass signifcant intellectual capital and capability in support of a objective. The last time we did this was during the Cold War.

This is what our senior intelligence officer was trying to show us. To teach us once again the lessons we learned in the battle against the Soviets and how we won the Cold War without ending the world.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 12:04 am:   

Mohammedan Pedi-omania?

You rascal, Le Chef!

You put in that pix of a lovely foot pedicure to drive those pedi-ophile worshipers crazy!

Ha ha! :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Morality of Covert Operations
Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 04:22 am:   

"Repugnant Philosophy":
Ethics, Espionage, and Covert Action(1)

by Dr. David L. Perry

There are great occasions in which some men are called to great services, in the doing of which they are excused from the common rule of morality. - Oliver Cromwell

A real diplomat is one who can cut his neighbor's throat without having his neighbor notice it. - Trygve Lie

http://home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/covert.htm

The link above goes to a page that discusses the morality of covert operations.

In all things trade offs are made for the greater good.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/covert axiology
Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 09:47 am:   

Axiology of Covert Operations: When is Coercion a Necessity?

125px-CIA.svg.png (interactive)
Central Intelligence Agency, Seal.

In Dr. David Perry's article referenced above, "Repugnant Philosophy": Ethics, Espionage, and Covert Action, it says:

quote:

Deception and Coercion

When the CIA is unable to obtain voluntary agents, it sometimes "recruits" them, so to speak, through deception. In some cases, people who wouldn't willingly work for the CIA are made unwittingly to do exactly that by passing information to a trusted friend or associate who happens to be in CIA employ but who presents himself as one with loyalties more congenial to the person being duped.(32) This method is sometimes called "false-flag" recruitment,(33) since the recruiter misrepresents the country that he or she is representing. It's essentially a con game, wherein one first ascertains the potential agent's basic loyalties and core values in order to concoct a scheme to persuade him to provide sensitive information without upsetting his conscience or arousing his suspicions.



This of necessity means the use of coercions and deception, itself a form of coercion, to fight an enemy who is attacking us, the coercion which must be fought back. The necessity of coercion was discussed at length in these earlier posts (links below) some three years ago, and perhaps more can be said on this 'axiology' of war, which for reasonable and moral people is an important question. In particular, how much coercion is the government allowed to use against its own citizens when pursuing and coercing enemy forces? In all great wars, personal and social sacrifice was demanded and mostly well accepted by the population at large. It is a sad and brutal fact that when we are attacked, there will be pain and suffering, what Winston Churchill called "blood, sweat, and tears", to fight back tyranny. If the enemy's goal is to enslave a population, then it must face off and fight back, with the sacrifices involved. Covert operations, mostly hidden from public view, is but one more battlefront, but sometimes the most important one, especially if it can spare the general population greater overt violence on the battlefield, if successful.

Below are links to some of the earlier discussions, which may be added to here in this thread, since this is an open ended question, the morality of covert operations against the enemy.

The New PeoplesBook FORUMS:
When is Coercion a Necessity?
When is Coercion Neceesity -2?

In part this question of ethics when fighting coercion is also covered in Habeas Mentem, Ch. 10:

http://www.humancafe.com/chapter-ten.htm

quote:

A Society Built on the Principle of Habeas Mentem
...
So now we can distinguish between agreements between individuals and their government, and between individuals and themselves. Under Habeas Mentem, only governments are allowed to form agreements that have the power to coerce another. This coercion can be permitted to the level that is permitted either by its constitution, as endorsed by its formal majority at ballot, or as agreed upon by the statistical majority of its population, by default of obedience. However, it has no justification over the life of an individual if that individual is consciously trespassed, forced into disagreement both with himself and with others, by that coercion. Then, however, since society had been organized for the benefit of the individuals who are in agreement with it and for the purpose of insuring each individual from becoming forced against his or her agreement, against trespass, the burden of proof rests not with society but with the individual so trespassed. On the other hand, agreements between individuals, except as defined by contract, may not have the power to coerce each other; they never have the power to form agreements that are designed to coerce another. Such is the agreement that is the social contract, otherwise it is not a society by agreement.



Only our socially agreed upon contract with the people of rule, of Constitutional rule by Social Contract, has the ultimate power to coerce in order to stop coercions. This is a mandatory first principle. Then, how to conduct the necessary coercions to rule effectively in a just and honorable manner becomes an issue of public debate. If the government is too far constrained from ruling effectively, which means it loses the power to coerce for justice, then its effectiveness is diluted and perhaps made ineffective; conversely, if too aggressive in its use of force, both covert and overt, then the people who are protected from coercions in all forms, from criminal violence to fraud, may themselves fall victim to such coercions. There is a fine and delicate balance that society must continually reassess and debate in order to achieve both a just rule as well as safety from foreign and domestic aggressions.

Much more can be said on this. Thanks for bringing this paper to our attention.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/veterans
Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 07:15 pm:   

Happy Veterans Day.

flag.jpg
(interactive) We must remember who we are, and fight the enemy to come.

"...and thank you, thank you more than words can express, to all those who have given their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor so that we can live in freedom today.

Much more will be called upon from us in the coming years. We must have many who are similarly willing to give -- of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor -- so that our children and our children's children can live free also.

Let us not now shrink from imitating them whom we honor on this day, each in our own way. Let us not shrink from this great struggle for human rights, human dignity, and freedom from oppression and injustice -- particularly the oppression and injustice, and assaults to human dignity that are enshrined in the Sharia.

Happy Veterans' Day."

(cross-posted from Robert Spencer's JihadWatch. -- thank you, I could not say it better.)

Thank you Veterans, so we can live in Freedom.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Freedom
Posted on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 01:23 am:   

'Back-burn' the Caliphate.


180px-Wsa-lightning-complex_fire_ron-gregory.jpg

Major fires are fought with back-burning, where the threat of spreading fire is stopped by eliminating fuel for its spread. In real life, such as war against a totalitarian ideology, back-burning may be a necessary way to fight its spreading threat. This leads into an article at Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: "The Muslim Brotherhood: A Moderate Islamic Alternative to al-Qaeda or a Partner in Global Jihad?" by Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi.

It says:

quote:

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna as an organization seeking to combat the secularization of the emerging Egyptian state. But it evolved into an organization that saw itself struggling against Western civilization, as a whole, in order to advance what it defined as Muslim civilization.10 It quickly spread and established branches in dozens of countries within the Middle East and even beyond.


This is the threat, that the Muslim Brotherhood is an organization that is against secularization and wants to impose political Islam on Western civilization. This runs counter to Quran 2:256, that there is no compulsion in religion, of course. But their political agenda is outside this restriction. The article further states:

quote:

Leiken, Brooke and the Muslim Brotherhood all use the same word, democracy, but their definitions and interpretations are worlds apart. Interviewed on September 17, 2007, by the Egyptian daily newspaper Al-Karama,12 Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef said that the organization's campaign slogan would be "The Sharia is the Solution" and that human rights and democracy would be included under Sharia rule. He devoted his May 12, 2007, weekly missive to an exposition of democracy as seen through Muslim Brotherhood eyes. He said that only Islam, which was given to men by Allah, was the expression of true democracy. He wrote that "Islam preceded...doctrines and ideologies devised by men. The final, absolute message from heaven contains all the values which the secular world claims to have invented....Islam and its values antedated the West by founding true democracy, exemplified by the Shura [the advisory council under the Caliphs] and Islam's respect for the equality of other religions....With regard to liberty, Islam reached a goal which secular preachers have not, for the liberty promised by Islam is genuine in every way, even in faith and religion....As to the claim that Islam does not recognize civil authority, the authority of Islam is democratic...it is genuine liberty, it provides equality in practice and is transparent, it neither oppresses nor robs any man of his rights....It is on that foundation and with those values that the Muslim Brotherhood calls for justice, equality, and liberty."


Here is the sinister truth, that they will use our laws and democratic principles, and our ideology and terminology, to undo our laws and democratic principles, which is absurd, but they will try. Our right to choose and be free as equal human beings is being challenged by a supremacist world domination ideology, Mohammed's, to force us all into submission to slavery to Allah. We are free men and women who have a right, by law, to be Who we are. Of course, subversion of these rights will not happen. However, they will try:

quote:

Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, a staunch Islamist, who in the past was a candidate for the Muslim Brotherhood leadership, issued a fatwa in April 2003, describing how Islam would conquer Europe and defeat Christianity by exploiting Western liberalism and democracy. It would be made possible, he promised, by spreading Islam until it was strong enough to take over the entire continent. He wrote that "it is eminently clear that the future belongs to Islam, and that the religion of Allah will be victorious and will, by the grace of Allah, conquer all other religions." His prediction was based on an Islamic tradition according to which the prophet Muhammad said that one of the signs of redemption in Islam would be the initial conquest of Constantinople and then the conquest of Rome.

According to Qaradawi, "Constantinople was conquered in 1453 by a 23-year old Ottoman named Muhammad ibn Murad, whom we call Muhammad the Conqueror. Now what remains is to conquer Rome. That is what we wish for, and that is what we believe in. After having been expelled twice, Islam will be victorious and reconquer Europe....I am certain that this time, victory will be won not by the sword but by preaching and [Islamic] ideology....The conquest of Rome and the spread of Islam East and West will be the fruit of the seed we plant and entail the return of the Caliphate, which treads the straight path [of Islam] and is based on the path of the prophets....[The Caliphate] is worthy of leading the nation to victory."42

Like Qaradawi, ‘Akef does not hide the Muslim Brotherhood's aspirations to lead a world Islamic revolution. He has stated that "the path of the Muslims is global," and Islam is the "religion of humanity." The Caliphate, he explained, is "the home of the entire [Islamic] nation, not only of the Muslim Brotherhood....We want...the Arab-Muslim world to be one nation, relying on the words of Allah: ‘This is your nation, one nation.'"


They think their victory over Constantinople's corrupt and stupidly complicit Medieval government assures them victory over Rome? How utterly idiotic, but they will try. Back burn here is easy. Eliminate their fuel: close off Saudi funding for their madrassas and mosques, eliminate the threat of (un)democratic reforms to our Constitutional laws by outlawing Sharia and Jihad, monitor preaching at mosques and deport hostile imams, and finally prosecute the wrongdoers for seditious activities against the state, and deport all those who had (by any means) supported Jihad and instituting any Sharia laws in contradiction to our Constitutional separation of church and state. This eliminates the threat quite immediately, and keep at it for a hundred years, because the threat exists as a fundamental principle of their extremist interpretations of the Islamic faith. Otherwise, we are forced to restrict immigration and citizenship for members of the Islamic sect.

Until such time that Islam is as civilized as Rome, where the Church is merely a conduit for believers to their own salvation, and the Islamic teachings do the same, as personal spiritual salavation, then we are unsafe from further attacks. Until then, there is no compromise with any cult or sect that imposes its will on others by force, such as the Muslim Brotherhood desires to do. They must be stopped at the base of their operations, the mosques and madrassas, and cut off the fuel that feeds them, back-burn Saudi funding. It's really not a problem, once we put this system into place. This has nothing to do with religion, since every person's belief is their own, but it has everything to do with sedition and conquest by a politicized cult. We will not allow it, ever. Religious belief, by our laws of religious freedom, is a personal faith ONLY, and has no business in politics or law. This was enshrined by our Constitutional law of 'separation of church and state' by the First Amendment. We live by this law, and Sharia has no place in it, if our freedoms are to be preserved for all successive generations to come. We are the Free. Fight fire with fire, if need be, but there is no turning back the clock. We live in Freedom, and our right to believe in God as we will is our own, but it does not entitle anyone to force their believe on anyone else. Sharia is such a force, which would replace our freedoms with a government of subservience to their religious views. There is no debate here. This must and will be stopped.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/freedom2
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 09:51 am:   

Back-burn Caliphate, addendum:

Ego driven belief system: I wrote on another thread (now closed):
"Imagine a faith based belief system centered on the ego, whereby what you believe is what everyone must believe universally, or more, what the whole universe must be. That's Ego. It is not the Supreme being that rules such a universe, but the Supreme ego of one man. This is what the Extremists believe, based on what Mohammed's had become, a totally coercive faith based system which if you fail to believe you will be punished, or killed. This is primitive nonsense, a false ideology, and totally wrong."

This is what Sharia and the Caliphate are founded on, an ego based religion which believes that what they believe the whole universe must believe, which is not only unrealistic but idiocy; and to be put to this kind of 'democracy/liberty' in their ideology is extreme oppression, a tyranny over the human mind, and extreme disrespect for the individual. Sharia is anti-freedom. We believe in the Supreme Being, not some supreme ego [of one man] of Mohammed.

I believe our belief system of the universe as the Supreme Being of all existence, which means Mind of all existence, as exemplified by our reality, and human consciousness, as respected by reciprocity and respect for individual's human rights, is a far superior system of belief than one based on one man's Ego's view of his supreme being. Back-burning the Caiiphate means we present our belief system as superior to theirs, which our culture and history have proved beyond a doubt. Our freedoms are a valuable and progressive state of humanity, our planetary future, which has no place for a dual system of Sharia law within our Constitutional government. There is no compromise on this issue, we must be very firm: Outlaw Sharia in the West in all its forms.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Jerusalem
Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 09:45 pm:   

Annapolis "peace" summit - will it bring peace, or 'hudna'?


_44266339_annapolis203getty.jpg

In today's BBC News, the headline reads: Olmert warns of 'end of Israel'. It says:

quote:

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said failure to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians would spell the end of the State of Israel.

He warned of a "South African-style struggle" which Israel would lose if a Palestinian state was not established.


Is this the absolute truth for the Middle East talks, a new "hopeful beginning", or the end?

In a prior article, Obstacles to peace: Refugees, it had said:

quote:

Israel steadfastly argues that all refugees - and it disputes the numbers - should relinquish any aspirations to return to what is now its territory, and instead be absorbed by Arab host countries or by a future Palestinian state.

It disavows moral responsibility by arguing that 800,000 Mizrahi Jews were displaced from Arab countries between 1945 and 1956 (most of whom settled in Israel) and insists Palestinians left willingly.

But that view is at odds with UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Resolution 194 asserts the refugees' unconditional right of return to live at peace in their old homes or to receive compensation for their losses.


Who is right? The UN Resolution 194, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If so, then does this mean all peoples who had been displaced by wars and progroms against peoples, or immigrants, such as Europeans suffered in Africa and parts of Asia, or Jews in Arab lands, are also entitled to the same UN Resolution and Article of Human Rights? Who is to enforce this for the millions of French, Italians, English, Dutch, Portuguese, Belgians, Germans. who had been displaced from their homes, sometimes after many generations of having lived in Algeria, Libya, Eritrea, Congo, Tunisia, Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), Uganda, Angola, Java, India, Pakistan, etc., who had often left with nothing to show for all they had put into the land and country from which they were unceremoniously kicked out, whole families, and at times lucky to have their lives? Or the hundreds of thousands of Jews kicked out from Egypt and other Arab lands, some of whose families had been there centuries, who will pay them back? So why is this 'refugee' problem different? Is the UN prepared to make payments? As it stands now, this UN Resolution 194 is nonsense.

The world has had great injustices in the past, and by tabulating these injustices for compensation only adds more injustices to those crimes against humanity already committed. Israel exists because of those injustices, and to make Israel pay for such injustices against humanity only adds one more layer of injustice. If this is all the Annapolis summit can do for peace, to make Israel pay again, then there is no peace process, but merely any cessation of hostilities is a 'hudna' at best, or lie and deceit.

The real issue is not the diaspora of 'refugees' but land, and 'reconquista' by the Arabs of that land, which they were told was theirs in perpetuity because of their right of conquest when their forebears conquered it in Jihad, so the Jews are not allowed back. This is a gross historical misconception and error of judgment, as well as one more layer of injustice against the Jews. If land is given up in trade, then it is no longer theirs. If the Arabs gave up land in battle, because they had attacked Israel, it is no longer theirs, by right of conquest, the same right they claim for their conquests of the whole Middle East region by Arab Jihad against the Christian world that preexisted them in past centuries. It does not work to have one set of rules apply to one side, but not the same set of rules apply to the other side, if this is called a 'negotiation' for peace. Then it is merely a demand for surrender, and Israel does not have that option open to them, no matter what or who or where this 'peace process' is taking place. One more layer of Arab injustice does not create peace, but at best a 'hudna' or temporary cease fire. That is not peace, but a renewal of war.

The solution to the Middle East crisis is to fix Arab borders, and make the Arabs obey that, because they had shown in the past an inability to do so. Why believe them now? The other solution is to have the Arab world take back its 'refugees' and grant them full citizenship rights in their countries. Finally, stop killing Israeli Jews, or Arabs, or anyone who happens to be there, and respect international borders. If there is to be created a Palestinian state as a separate and sovereign nation which respects international borders and laws, and is not driven by the Jihad of the centuries that got them into this mess today, then perhaps there is hope for peace. But if Jihad is the main purpose for Arab repossession of Israeli land, then there is no peace, and no treaty, not even 'hudna'. There is no peace in Jihad, ever.

80px-Jerusalem-coat-of-arms.svg.png

Finally, there is Jerusalem. If peace is achieved, that Arabs respect Israeli borders and cease harassing the population with suicide bombings and missile attacks, then the idea of Jerusalem divided into an Arab capital of Palestine might happen, but not for 99 years. Until then, the UN resolution that decreed Israel's existence said Jerusalem was to be an 'international city' open to all. In 99 years, if Arabs prove they have made peace, and not 'hudna', then perhaps. But not in this lifetime. (If Arabs fail, then it resets for 99 years.) For now, under Israeli administration, Jerusalem is a 'sanctuary' city of the Christians, the Jews, and the Muslims, as an International City open to all, under UN Resolution 181.

In the Arab Hadiths, Bukhari 84:60, it says:

quote:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jew passed by Allah's Apostle and said, "As-Samu 'Alaika." Allah's Apostle said in reply, "We 'Alaika." Allah's Apostle then said to his companions, "Do you know what he (the Jew) has said? He said, 'As-Samu 'Alaika.'" They said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we kill him?" The Prophet, said, "No. When the people of the Book greet you, say: 'Wa 'Alaikum.'"




_42929071_1948.jpg,180px-Nahr.jpg (interactive)
Palestinian refugee camps, 1948 and now.

If there is 'peace', then let it be a truthful peace, but if 'hudna', then let it be war until the end, for there is no deterrence to war in deceit.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/axis jihad
Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 09:49 pm:   

Political Ic*slam -- axis of Jihad the enemy -- not the same as 'Islam'


516xt+QwbvL._AA240_.jpg (interactive)
'The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad' by Moorthy Muthuswamy

Some sample quotes from his interview at Front Page:

quote:

Muthuswamy: Political Islamic ideology is found in the Islamic trilogy (the Koran, Hadith and Sira). Confronting this ideology with science is a no-lose proposition and has the most potential for driving a wedge between the political Islam and educated Muslims. This should also lead to loss of prestige of Muslim clerics and weakening of nodes of network that spawn jihad – the mosques.

Educated Muslims are the backbone of the political Islamic movement. Clearly, madarasa-only educated Muslims do not have the requisite knowledge to operate effectively in the modern world; the college educated ones do.

Due to physical threats, the trilogy couldn’t be put under microscope in Islamic nations and political correctness has done the same in Western nations. But the existential threat arising from political Islam calls for taking a critical look at the trilogy.


And also about how to combat political Ic*slam:

quote:

Political Islam’s contemporary record of unbeliever genocide, backed by scriptures, has no parallels with any other faith. Hence, as part of preemption, non-Muslim majority nations are well-within their rights to categorize any mosque or any Muslim religious institution that stocks or distributes material derived from Islamic trilogy as an enemy entity – and shut them down if needed. Even if a mosque appears outwardly moderate in a Western nation, by preaching trilogy dominated by political Islam, it is still stealthily building up jihad in local Muslim community! Of course, mosques in Muslim majority nations are overt about advancing jihad.

This way of going after the nodes that spawn jihad should also help liberate Muslim populations to alternate way of life or faith – i.e. help ensure religious freedom of Muslim populations repressed by a political ideology masquerading as a religion. Importantly, this tactic does not violate liberty of individual Muslims.
...
In other words, history or societies don’t change in predictable and small incremental steps. There is always this pattern: Certain unpredictable events affected significant percentage of a population leading to evolution of a society in a new direction. But the American response to 9/11 attacks can at best be seen as a predictable, incremental progression in dealing with the enemy. This approach, historically, as noted earlier, doesn’t work! American security, including its nuclear security, continues to be compromised by the presence of strong political Islamic movements in axis of jihad nations.

One could argue that with political Islamic movement in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan being the de facto powers there, and outside of the control of the national leadership and being entrenched, decisive strikes could be an unfortunate necessity. In other words, these strikes could become in the word’s of Nassim Taleb’s 2007 book, a “Black Swan” – the unexpected and devastating event that compel jihad-sponsoring populations that are part of the political Islamic movement to make a U-turn vis-ŕ-vis terror support.

More so than any Western nation or even Israel, there is an important way a jihad victim state such as India can help deliver decisive near-term blows to political Islamic movements in some axis of jihad nations.
...
Iran’s situation is different, with clerics in direct control there. America may have to execute military strikes to slow down its nuclear program. However, Iran does have a strong semi-secular nationalist political class, unlike Sunni Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. With this class and misgoverning by clerics, there exists potential for discrediting the standing of ruling mullahs as the first step towards neutralizing its terror and nuclear threats.



Can a future war, and present war extended, be avoided with the "axis of Jihad"? Or is it already too late?

Read it all, and get the book. Dr. Moorthy sounds very level headed and clear minded, intelligent response to the jihadi threat to western civilization.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 08:54 pm:   

Mrs. President ... and the First Nan?


hillary_day_one.jpg
Mrs. President, Day One

Not to get political, but if Clintonomics worked so well under Bill, why not same again under Hillary? What's a missing 'n' got to do with it? :-) She's got to have a leg up on Bushonomics.

"You GO girl" !!


Le nan Chef
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/war and peace
Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 10:10 am:   

War and Peace.

Tolerance in war, and intolerance in peace holds no honor.
Tolerance in peace, and intolerance in war is the better strength.


Reciprocity in all human agreements overpowers coercions in all conflicts.
Stay true to this and victory is assured. There is no peace with the weak.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bad Voodoo
Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 01:09 am:   

Bad Voodoo War, fighting the zombies.


synopsisp.jpg
Sfc. Toby Nunn and Spc. Bryan Hamlin


Why are we fighting there? The zombies don't want us, let them work it out, in their cult of death.

"My trust meter is seldom on green." Nation building and "winning their hearts and minds" will only happen when they feel themselves subdued. Hit them when they step out of line, from outside raining death.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ananimas
Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 07:29 pm:   

Historic facts about Israel's aid to humanity, despite its tiny size:

http://www.conceptwizard.com/trial/trial.html

Where is the Arab aid? Where are Muslim acts of generosity?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Beowulf
Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2008 - 01:32 pm:   

Beowulf and Carter's last stand.

170px-Beowulf_challenged_by_the_coastguard_by_E_Paul.jpg
Beowulf of legend, on the Danish coast

In the ancient Anglo-Saxon legend epic poem of Beowulf the saga dating back to the 8th century and perhaps the oldest European surviving vernacular manuscript in Old English, the Danes are being harassed by a rapaciously murdering Grendel, which in the end is killed by the hero, Beowulf. The epic saga continues where he slays the fire breathing dragon, but the main thrust of this ancient tale is the triumph of courage and right over that of evil and violent fearsome savagery. It may also be an ancient legend of a far more dim past where the present Nordic Europeans had to fight the last remnants of a far more ancient race, perhaps descendants of earlier Neanderthals they called 'trolls', which are killed off to extinction. The ferocity and strength of that ancient primitive race was handed down through tales until it was written down in more modern times, perhaps much changed, until the days of the saga Beowulf. The hero kills the ferocious Grendel, and then his mother in the now known tale, though it may echo battles of so long ago they are forgotten to history. In the end, the righteous Danes and their Gaet (Swedish or Celtic) hero Beowulf rise up against that ancient primitive force and through courage and will prevail.

This is a seminal legend of ancient European collective psyche which plays out today again, but in a different part of the world, in the Middle East. Here the rapacious primitive force is embodied in Islamic Jihad, which is fearsome and violently savage in its attacks, with beheadings and suicide attacks on civilians, incomprehensible to modern minds, not only in Israel but now also in Europe and other parts of the world. The new Jihad launched by extreme orthodox Islam has been raised by the Jihadi black flag of Hamas and others, to avenge Islam's loss of world domination as was demanded by Mohammad and his god Allah; and carried out successfully throughout the Middle East to North Africa, southern Europe and all the way to Asia, where the indigenous peoples of Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were conquered by force, and ultimate subdued and converted to Islam, often with genocidal brutality and enslavement. They had become in modern times the new 'Grendel' of legend, a monstrously violent force that calls for a hero to have them vanquished. Attempts at negotiations, understanding and dialogue, and both monetary concessions and humanistic aid have had no impact on the stance of Hamas, or Hezbollah, or the Muslim Brotherhood's calls for the eradication of a people, and ultimately the conquest of Europe and America by Allah's forces. Perhaps this in its aggressive force of domination by a religious mandate going back 1400 years is now finally waking the collective psyche of the West, and a new battle must be fought against the forces of such unconscionable, and today unacceptable, aggression against the civilized free world. We of the West do not wish to return to the barbaric days of religious conquest demanding full submission to an ancient religious belief founded on total domination, as 'slaves of Allah', which itself is hostile to our newly acquired civilizatiional freedoms. So a white knight hero is once again called for, to vanquish the attackers.

Such an unlikely hero is former US President Jimmy Carter. He served during the late 1970s as president during the fall of the Shah of Iran, where the Islamic revolution took American hostages and held them for 444 days until the end of his presidency. This was a tragedy for Carter, against which he proved helpless to release the hostages, even went into seclusion for a time, and for which he may have held remorse over such failure ever since.

260px-Ahmadinejad_alleged.JPG
Iranian militants escort US hostage

For his later good works, especially the Camp David Accord, and Israel Egypt Peace Treaty of 1979, Carter won himself praise as a peacekeeper. He was also recognized as champion of human rights, especially against the Soviet Communist regime. In more recent times his works as a peace negotiator through his establishment of the Carter Center has won him acclaim, which led to his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. His image as a peace negotiator has manifest in the strange way of history, though the Israel Arab conflict remains unresolved, for Carter to be seen as a 'white knight' figure in such conflicts. So it was not surprising when he offered to speak to Hamas and try to bring them and Israel to a peaceful resolution of their differences. His idea is to bring all to the negotiating table and work out a solution acceptable for all involved. However, this unlikely champion of peace has now come under criticism for being naive in the ways of Islamic Jihad, or how it is embodied in Hamas's call to arms against Israel and the West.

carter_265x182.jpg
Jimmy Carter, Mother Jones News interview (click on image for text) 2006

But this is an old story, where the 1400 year old Jihad against Dar-al-Harb, or the House of War, had been waged since the beginning to bring the whole world into Dar-al-Islam, or the House of Submission (to Allah), as dictated by the Quran and Hadith texts of Islam. It is in the fundamental tenets of Islam that once land is conquered it can never revert back to its origins but must firmly remain within Dar-al-Islam. To have Israel formed inside Muslim territories of the Arabian Peninsula is therefore a serious affront on Islamic ambitions for world domination, because it regained land lost by the Jews and Christians centuries ago, and now reclaimed. Hamas and other followers of strict Islam cannot ever tolerate such an affront, so are blood bound in duty to reclaim such lands for Islam again, it is in their Hamas charter.

quote:

Surely, Carter is aware that, as a matter of religious conviction, Meshaal cannot accept Israel’s existence. Hamas believes every inch of Israel and, indeed, of any land ever ruled by Muslims is “an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day,” the charter states. A Muslim can fight to reclaim this endowment or he can fail to fulfill the obligations his faith imposes. ... The Hamas charter asserts, “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” -- from linked article above


So there is no 'solution' to the Isareli Palestinian conflict, if such a charter is to be observed, at least not from Hamas's point of view. When Carter approached them, they would listen politely or not, but under no circumstances can they ever abandon their Jihad. It is in their charter: “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” Whether Carter understood this from the start is an open question. In fact his noble and good intentions in negotiations were distressed by his visit to Sderot, where he witnessed damage of the persistent rocket attacks on the Jewish settlements in Israel. These were not military targets, something everyone understands in war, but innocent civilians who were being systematically and sporadically attacked. Hamas opposes systemically the "two state solution" and no amount of negotiations can change their stance, because they are blood sworn to Jihad. Combined with Iran's president, and various imams and mullahs, calling for the eradication of Israel and a new holocaust, the prospects for peace via negotiations become as illusive as Beowulf talking to Grendel. The old legends here have more force than modern sensibilities for peace.

do0303 (interactive)
Abbas has made no effort to prevent Hamas launching its rockets indiscriminately at Israel - UK Telegraph

This modern war between Hamas and Israel, and more broadly between Islamic Jihad and the West, will need a more powerful hero than the unlikely 'white knight' of non-violence negotiations, but one who can win by force. Force of arms is what this enemy understands, and if they are blood sworn to reclaim Israeli lands for Islam, and fight to the death like Grendel, they will be fought to the death. There are no peaceful solutions with primitive force, as Beowulf knew full well, and there can be no peace with an unwilling party sworn to fight to death, whether in Gaza or Lebanon. The hero must vanquish the foe.

Jimmy Carter's latest efforts at finding peace is to call for a 'cease fire'. BBC News, 19 April, 2008:

quote:

Hamas spokesmen said Mr Carter had asked for it to stop rocket attacks on Israel and to enter talks for the release of an Israeli captive.
They said any truce must be two-way and there would be a "price" for freeing Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.


We shall see if this can be an answer, but if Hamas rejects it, or fails to release their Israeli captives, then Carter is no Beowulf. This may be Carter's last stand.


Ivan

For films on the Beowulf Saga, see: Beowulf & Grendel (1999), and newer Beowulf (2007) both tap into the legend of the Hero.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear of Failure
Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 11:20 am:   

U.S. military groomed TV analysts, NYT says
Paper: Extensive ideological, business ties raise issue of manipulation

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24220130

A very good article on the Bush administration's use of information warfare to bolster public support for the war in Iraq and abuse of prisoners.

The war in Iraq was planned before 9/11. The decsion to execute it came after 9/11 and used the emotion generated by the event to wrest authority for it from Congress. Many in the administration and DOD felt that Saddam needed to be removed and that in doing so it would set the stage for a replay of the Domino Theary. This time in the United States favor. The Intent was to capitalize on the incorporation of the former East Block nations into NATO and secure the Middle East by putting democratically elected governments into place that were well dispossed to the United States and Israel.

This vision of the future brought together a coalition of true believers that felt we had a god given mandate to bring our form of democracy to the Middle East, where it would be welcomed by the repressed peoples of that region.

This coalition included devoted Christian fundamentalists, NEOCON's and extreme right wing Republicans and their corporate backers. This group then used every resource at their disposal including information warfare against the American People to attempt to continue to sustain support for the war in Iraq dispite the failure of their visions and projections to emerge.

The sad truth is that the people of the Middle East have to a large degree fallen under the sway of charasmatic militant religous leaders opposed accomdation with the West and Israel.

President Carter's trip and meeting with Hamas is foolish and naieve at this time. Carter is trying to play the great game with men that have no morals or regard for human life. They will use him and any conecessions he gets to further inflame oppinion agaisnt the United States and Israel by making Hamas appear to the population of the Middle East as being a reasonable entitity which is willing to bargan with them but is instead treated as a paria nation by the West.

In short what has happened and is happening in the Middle East and the Iraq War is one of the greatest foreign policy blunders by the United States in its history. One that has split the American people from support of its government and given great ammunition in terms of information warfare to our adversaries in this war.

Fear of failure in Iraq no lays at the core of the policy making decisions in the DOD and the Bush Administration. Staffed with legions of type A personalities who take every casualty personnally the DOD has adopted a win at all costs mindset in Iraq. This same mindset affects the Bush administration and is driving its policies to the detriment of the United States.

I have recently spoken to a large number of returning Veteran's from Iraq and Afghanistan. Due to repeated tours the front line soldiers have become more and more desensitized to the plight of the Muslims in those countries. As they conduct patrols they through objects at the population and curse them. They taunt them and treat them with disrespect. This stems from pent up anger regarding a coninuing insurgency where day after day they see their friends and commrads killed and wounded by insurgents.

This development is typical in counter-insurgency operations. Adversaries try to drag the war out until opposition forces become tired and worn out by the fight. When this occured these opposition soldies become more inclined to committ counter productive acts of violence or cultural desensitivity. These acts are then used by the adversary forces to further inflame the poplution

This is currently the situation we face.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon Anon
Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 11:38 am:   

US soldiers burnt Koran: report
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2007/10/14/us-soldiers-burnt-koran-report/

The link above is tied to a web site that tracks the war in Afghanistan.

The truth of this incident is not known and is likely false. However as posted previously incidents between our front line troops and Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan have become more strained and incidents of cultural antagonism are rising. This rise matches the recent rise in violence in Afghanistan

This does not bold well for us as this war drags on.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Carter's answer
Posted on Monday, April 21, 2008 - 09:47 pm:   

Hamas answers Carter.

_44588309_49cd3e65-b131-43f6-9039-1079b28cf752.jpg (interactive - click image for text)
BBC News: Hamas rejects Israeli recognition


quote:

Speaking in Syria, where he lives in exile, Khaled Meshaal said the Palestinian state must have "Jerusalem as its capital, with genuine sovereignty, without settlements".
He added that this did not mean recognising Israel, but he said: "We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as an alternative to recognition."



A 'ten year truce' is not the same as peace, it is a Koranic reset period before resuming hostilities, also called hudna, but not peace. Jimmy Carter's gesture of goodwill at negotiations meets with the stone wall of Jihad. In fact, Islamic Jihad as a function of the 'uncreated' word of Allah has no choice in the matter, for they must carry our Mohammed's directive to make the whole world Allah's. Peace is then impossible.

In the words of the White House:

quote:

In any case, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said, "actions speak louder than words".



Sorry Jimmy. :-(

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

come to peace
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 10:21 pm:   

from the depth of ignorance

we here on earth have explored from depths of ignorance, to show how such belief is false, that there are no evil spirits or evil eye, or hell, or jinns to be feared like dogs or pigs, that all these are foolish human fears

hope spring eternal in the human heart to cast light and flee ignorance into dark shadows where it belongs, we are more than our petty foolish fears, but children of a greater god of love and hope eternal, fighting at the depths of our darkness, with each other lost

in truth we are moved by a greater god, and in this is our redemption as human species populating all parts of god's world, powered by light not ignorance, for we are free of ignorance and gather into the light, a shadow cannot live without the light, but light lives without shadow

these forums have served us well, to dispel the shadows, and let us stand upright like righteous beings of light, we are so much more in the light of truth, moved by a higher intellect

we come that peace, away from depths of ignorance, into the light

we are free
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Iran strike
Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 10:17 am:   

Is there a military strike coming against the Mullahs of Iran?

Satellite.jpeg (click for text - JPost News)
White House denies reported plan to attack

USS Mount Whitney has been positioned on Lebanon's coast. From DEBKA:

quote:

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Saturday, May 17, the USS Mount Whitney, considered the US Navy’s most advanced command, control, communications, computer and intelligence vessel, took up position opposite Lebanese shores for an “unscheduled mission.”


This has more to do with combating Hezbollah than Iran, though the linkage between the two is clear. Undoing this linkage proxy war against Israel, while at the same time pressuring Iran's Mullahs to give up their Bomb ambitions, is a problem for the White House. Can it be resolved by the end of Bush's term?

Is $130 oil financing Iran's war chest? If so, crack oil, and make them shelve their Bomb ambitions indefinitely. Or else? What other options exist? Exploit the Sunni-Shia divide? ... stay tuned... This reported possible strategic air strike against Iran is old news (also aired by Debka earlier), but it is not news going away.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Pakistan Jihad
Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 07:13 pm:   

Jihad? Did Pakistan Daily 'tell it like it is' and then removed it?

200px-Flag_of_Jihad.svg.png (linked to original page, now deleted)
The flag of Jihad

I know it was there because I looked at it, but didn't download. However this page talks about it: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021115.php

An item of interest:

quote:

It is, therefore, naturally important to clarify this matter such that the Muslims are able to refute the erroneous misunderstandings that exist, refute false claims and rekindle the love of Jihad.
Greater/Smaller Jihad
Firstly, the common understanding of Muslims is that Jihad is divided into two sections: Jihad ul-Akbar (the ‘Greater Jihad’), which is connected to Jihad ul-Nafs i.e. fighting the inner desires and shaiytan etc… Jihad ul-Asghar (the ‘Smaller Jihad’), which is fighting the kaafir enemy in battles and what is related to it.
Of the evidences that are quoted from the Islamic texts, the main one is the hadith, where Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “We have arrived from the small Jihad to the great Jihad”. So they asked, “What is the great Jihad?” He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, “It is Jihad ul-Nafs (against the inner self).”
In another narration, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) referred to the“…Jihad of the slave against his desires.”
Though it is correct that there is a Jihad against the nafs, like against shaiytan, however, it is not greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) from the physical Jihad against the Kuffar and it (Jihad ul-Nafs) does not cancel nor invalidate it.
This Jihad against the Kaafir enemies is continuous until the Day of Judgment as is the Jihad against the nafs also continuous until the Day of Judgement. But one should know that the evidences of doing Jihad against the nafs are different to the evidences of Jihad against the Kuffar.


Read it all, including the commentaries. It looks like this Pakistani journalism comes clean on the real meaning of Jihad. This is a clear case of "know your enemy," and calling Jihad by any other name is not good enough.

Here's a follow up on the same article: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021127.php#more

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tacitus
Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 10:11 am:   

"They create a desert and call it peace." - Tacitus.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021256.php
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Israel 'peace' talks
Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 06:59 pm:   

Israeli 'peace' talks take giant step backwards as Hamas and Fatah jockey for position in a new government in Ramallah, second half of 2009.

1353.jpg
Mahmoud Abbas plays Double game, per DEBKAfile

This will be a very interesting development, and Condolezza Rice is stepping into this trap to humiliate her.

There is no 'peace' developing in the Israeli-Palesitinian Arab conflict, merely moves on the board while Hamas and Hezbollah rearm. Read it all, especially the three step process to achieve this ploy: Palestinian Unity Ploy Will Steal Gaza Military Initiative from Israel

quote:

The situation at present is as follows:
Once the Palestinian deal is signed and sealed, the countdown begins for a new president on behalf of - or sponsored by - Hamas to take office in Ramallah the second half of 2009.
To achieve this goal, Hamas will go through the motions of handing back the Gaza Strip’s governing institutions to the Palestinian Authority while retaining its iron military grip on the territory.



Ah, the duplicity, all fair in war with the infidels, per Mohammed's "war is deceit". Condi's visit is pointless, when all agreements are non-binding through duplicity. There will be no peace in the desert they created.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/NewDelhi rickshaw
Posted on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 06:28 pm:   

Take a ride on a rickshaw.


800px-Autorickshaw_on_Raj_Path_New_Delhi (interactive}
New Delhi auto-rickshaw: Here is a video which will give you a one minute thrill of riding a rickshaw in New Delhi: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7424026.stm

There's really no thrill like riding a rickshaw in busy traffic. I did it many times in all my travels in Asia. But most memorable was when near dawn my rickshaw driver tooted through a waking crowd of some of the poorest people on Earth, in Old Delhi. I still remember the clinging smell of dried urine and human sweat inside those bone thin raggedy beings moving in slow motion, their hands trying to reach for me as we slowly drove by. It was by my request we went there, and that image is imprinted in my brain for as long as I shall live. That was humanity in its most raw form, and after that all wealth and trappings of wealth became nothing for me. So today, while oil prices are going through the roof, I don't care. Drive a rickshaw if the SUV is too big for you, or at least look into an electric hybrid, or take a rickshaw if you dare.

But somehow, it is not the same, not Old Delhi, the city looks too new and the cows on street are missing, so are crowds of pedestrians walking everywhere, and the huge 'people carriers' and Tata trucks all blaring their 'horn please'. I was last in Delhi 1989, it all looks so neat now. I'm sure it still sounds and smells the same. There are smells in life that never go away, like the smell of cooking fires in Nepal or Sudan, or those miserable souls at dawn in Old Delhi, God bless them.

World oil prices at $135 are already pricing in WW III. Is Iran paying attention? This could be their warning shot, to end all wars, or else face total destruction, oil wells included. No Mahdi can save them then.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 06:30 pm:   

SENATE COMMITTEE HEARING ON EXTREMISM: Steven Emerson's statement

"Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations in the West have successfully, but disingenuously, positioned themselves as gatekeepers to the Muslim-American community. The underlying goal of these groups is to redefine moderate Islam and to oversee a separation between Western Muslim communities and their secular host societies in order to promote Islamism reinforce loyalty to the global ummah. Inherent in these goals is a strategy to weaken Western resistance to Islamism. Presenting themselves as the moderate voices of Islam, they have created a narrative to their community that the US government’s campaign against terrorism is, rather, a generalized “war against Islam” that must be shunned, discouraged, and monitored. This characterization serves to demonize the efforts of the U.S. government and the West, which ultimately serves to radicalize and alienate Western Muslims.

To a large degree, the narrative propagated by these organizations is a corollary of the primary message of radical Islam at large: That there is a conspiracy by the West to subjugate Islam. This self-victimization fuels paranoia that Muslims are being selectively targeted for racist reasons, because of “special interests,” or due to anti-Muslim bias in Western foreign policy. This, in turn, inflames self-alienation and degrades any positive connections between Western Muslim communities and their host state. The foundation and histories of these intertwined organizations in America, as well as their actions in the West, should be examined in an effort to shed a light on the radicalizing effect on the local Muslim communities.

....

In 1993, there was a meeting of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America on how to advance the cause of Hamas. As a result of those discussions, three officials from the pro-Hamas, Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) founded the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s stated mission is “to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.” By observing the Washington, D.C. based leadership of CAIR, and some of CAIR’s local branch leaders throughout the United States for twelve-years, it has become clear that CAIR has branched out beyond their stated mission. CAIR resources have consistently been utilized to block any action against radicalism. Since its inception, CAIR has intimidated and silenced critics - even fellow Muslims - while spreading disinformation about any who attempt to oppose or compete with them. Personal attacks on reporters, government officials and others who address issues of radical Islamism are dispatched in lieu of responding substantively to allegations. Almost every time there is a terrorist prosecution or an asset forfeiture of an Islamic charity linked to a terrorist group, CAIR, and other groups such as the Muslim American Society (MAS) - an organization that has been identified by a top Muslim Brotherhood leader as one of their own - condemns it as a fishing expedition meant to demonize Muslims. CAIR does indeed also work to protect the civil liberties of Muslims, an important endeavor, but does so in a way that projects an “us vs. them” mentality to American Muslims, purposefully fomenting isolation from the rest of the country."

Beware.

"While it can be argued that outreach with the Muslim-American community is a necessary component to a successful counterterrorism strategy, there is absolutely no reason that this outreach has to go through organizations that ascribe to the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Alternatively, outreach can be performed at the grassroots level and through individuals respected in the Muslim-American community, like doctors and local businessmen, instead of through groups such as CAIR, ISNA, and MAS.

Muslim voices which promote accountability, democracy, human rights and freedoms must be elevated and embraced. Short of that, organizations, individuals and institutions in the West and in the Muslim world that are knee-jerk anti-American, and pro-terrorist, or, at a minimum, apologists for terrorism, should be denounced and avoided. The U.S. should not seek to embrace or promote the “least worst option” for lack of a better solution. All organizations with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood need to be treated for what they are: fascistic, paternalistic organizations that seek the return of the Caliphate, and organizations that are apologists for radical Islam and terrorism, and are not prepared to be responsible actors in democratic systems, and will not support the future pluralistic liberal institutions which much be built throughout the Muslim world in order to strengthen the promotion of democracy."


Support for these Islamic Brotherhood-like organizations may be the wrong way to fight global Jihad, since the "moderates" are only wolves in sheeps' clothing, with the same world-domination ideology jihad as their violent members. We need to support Muslims of good social standing who reject such anti-liberal philosophies, reject the Caliphate, and support individual rights and freedoms, especially freedom of speech and personal faith, rather than the political ideology of a world umma. Democracy and individual human rights has no compromise with totalitarian ideologies, secular or religiously inspired, of total control of our individual lives from birth to death, and death for apostasy as the sword held over our necks if we fail to obey them in submission. For this reason we cherish a separation of religion and state as a primary protection of our human freedom of belief, not as dictated by religious dogmas and authority, but as found in our own hearts between our soul and God.

We who are free do not live on bended knee. Read it all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 10:44 am:   

Is it 1979 all over again?

J.B. Kelly: Of Valuable Oil & Worthless Policies

...After 150 years of keeping the peace of the Gulf Britain had walked (or rather sidled) out. Her departure represented a triumph for that school of thought which, ever since the defeat at Suez fifteen years earlier, had held that there was no call any longer for “a British presence” anywhere in the Middle East. For the United States, which had tried – rather late in the day- to prevail upon Britain to reconsider the decision to leave the Gulf, the British withdrawal posed a twofold problem. There could be no question of the United States actively assuming the role that Britain had relinquished; for the national neurosis induced by the war in Viet Nam had already begun the slow paralysis of American foreign policy which has today almost reached a terminal stage. On the other hand, an area as intrinsically unstable as the Gulf, containing half the known oil reserves in the world, could not simply be left without any form of regional security, especially as there were other outside powers inimical to the West, the Soviet Union in particular, who would welcome the opportunity now granted them to intervene, in one guise or another, in the Gulf's affairs. Confronted with this dilemma, the United States sought an easy solution – and found it in the expedient of building up Saudi Arabia and Iran, the twin pillars, as guardians of the Gulf.

The basic flaw in this arrangement was that these two states had been the principal troublemakers in the Gulf for a good century-and-a-half, and they showed no signs of changing their spots. Ever since the close of the 18th century the House of Saud had been trying to extend its sway over the entire Arabian peninsula, desisting only when internecine quarrels or the intrusive activities of its neighbours periodically distracted it. By the early 1930s King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud (the father of the present ruler) had conquered the bulk of the peninsula, the further extension of his power being blocked by Britain's treaty relationship with the petty states of the Arabian littoral of the Gulf, as well as by her protectorate over South Arabia and her longstanding friendship with Oman. The discovery of oil in Hasa, the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, did not abate Ibn Saud's appetite for fresh territory. On the contrary, beginning in 1934, he advanced large claims to the Rub al-Khali, the “Empty Quarter” and parts of Oman and Abu Dhabi, on the assumption (which time was to prove correct) that they also might contain oil deposits. His sons and successors persisted with the claims after his death in 1953, resorting to a fair number of dubious tactics in an effort to enforce them - including gun-running, bribery, attempted assassination, subversion in Oman and encouragement for a tribal rebellion in Dhufar. An eventual accommodation was reached in 1974-75 – in so far as anything can be said to be settled in the flux and reflux of Arabian politics – when some substantial pieces of Oman and Abu Dhabi, one of them containing a large oilfield, were made over to Faisal ibn Abdul Aziz as the price of his recognition of the newly-formed “United Arab Emirates.”

The 'great empire' of Xerxes revived?

Iran, like the Saudi amirate of Najd, had resisted nearly every effort by Britain in the 19th and 20th centuries to civilise the Gulf and bring it under the rule of law, whether by the suppression of piracy and maritime warfare, the outlawing of the slave trade, the curbing of the arms traffic, the charting of the Gulf's waters, the laying of the telegraph or the establishment of quarantine stations and regulations. This policy of obstruction was accompanied by, indeed, largely arose from, an almost pathological addiction on the part of Persian governments to the assertion of large and insubstantial claims to dominion over much of the Gulf region – to the Shatt al-Arab and parts of Kuwait, to Bahrain and other islands in the Gulf, to tracts of Seistan, Makran, and Baluchistan, and to western areas of Afghanistan. In part these claims were occasioned by a desire to compensate for territory lost to Russia in the Caucasus and beyond the Caspian, and as such they were often encouraged by the Russians. They also sprang, however, from a conviction (similar to that held by the Al Saud of Najd) that wherever in the world an Iranian foot had once trod that spot remained thereafter irrevocably and eternally Iranian.

Illusions of grandeur and an obsessive pre-occupation with what were held to be Iran's sovereign rights in the Gulf region also dominated the thinking of Muhammad Reza Shah. His modest ambition was to bestride Western Asia like a Colossus, to recreate the empire of Darius and to make Iran, within the space of one or two decades, into the second industrial nation in Asia after Japan.

Maybe after Iran is soundly beaten into submission (like were Japan and Germany in WW II) will it too become an industrial nation modern in every sense. But not with Islam.

The battle against higher oil prices, however, was lost almost as soon as it began in the early summer of 1970, when Colonel Muammar Qaddafi unilaterally raised the price of Libyan oil under the threat of shutting down production by the Western oil companies operating in Libya. Despite efforts by the major American and British oil companies to impress upon the US government the consequences of allowing Qaddafi to succeed with his extortion, the State Department refused to stand up to him. When the rest of OPEC emulated the Libyan leader's tactics and threatened the oil companies with an embargo unless their demands for increased prices were also met, the State Department, after initially assisting to make a combined negotiation by the companies legally permissible under US anti-trust legislation, then proceeded to sabotage the subsequent negotiations with OPEC at Tehran in January 1971 by withdrawing its support when the going got rough.
From that moment onward the struggle with OPEC was lost. Henceforth oil prices were progressively to be fixed, not by negotiation as in normal mercantile transactions (pace the exponents of treating oil like any other commercial commodity) but by OPEC fiat. The unedifying display of pusillanimity and sauve qui peut which constituted Western Europe's reaction, and in particular that of Britain and France, to the Arab oil embargo of 1973 only confirmed the Middle-Eastern members of OPEC in their contempt for the Western powers. It is little wonder that, with allies like these, the Americans turned in the summer of 1974 to making their own arrangements to safeguard their oil interests in the Arabian peninsula by entering into comprehensive agreement with Saudi Arabia for the provision of arms, military training, and assistance with economic development in return for guaranteed oil supplies and promises of Saudi financial investment in the USA. The agreement amounted, in sum to an American undertaking to preserve the integrity of Saudi Arabia and the primacy of the Al Saud within it.

It was OPEC then, but it is Iran-Russia who play the "oil hikes" game today, largely with a combo of scary oil news and futures markets price controlling activities.

The vast riches, which have flowed into the Gulf in this decade have generated prodigality and corruption on a comparable scale. The native tribesman, now that the age of abundance has arrived, will no longer soil his hands with toil; so the heavy manual work of building the contemporary Xanadus arising along the Gulf coast is done by Iranian, Baluchi and Pakistani labourers in their thousands (and in Saudi Arabia by hundreds of thousands of Yemenis), while the skilled tasks are performed by Europeans (“white coolies”) and Arab émigrés (most of whom are Palestinians).

A small cadre of rich Arabs supported by a large army of enslaved poverty is a recipe for social instability disaster. The Iran Islamic tyranny mullahs are watching with narrowed eyes, as are Russian tyrannical mafia bosses, all dreaming being today's latter day Darius.

Is it 1979 relived today? Read it all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/we a free people
Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 11:58 am:   

We are a free people.


quote:

Support for these Islamic Brotherhood-like organizations may be the wrong way to fight global Jihad, since the "moderates" are only wolves in sheeps' clothing, with the same world-domination ideology jihad as their violent members. We need to support Muslims of good social standing who reject such anti-liberal philosophies, reject the Caliphate, and support individual rights and freedoms, especially freedom of speech and personal faith, rather than the political ideology of a world umma. Democracy and individual human rights has no compromise with totalitarian ideologies, secular or religiously inspired, of total control of our individual lives from birth to death, and death for apostasy as the sword held over our necks if we fail to obey them in submission. For this reason we cherish a separation of religion and state as a primary protection of our human freedom of belief, not as dictated by religious dogmas and authority, but as found in our own hearts between our soul and God. - anon, per above



Ditto. This is why a "separation of church and state" is so fundamental to our freedoms, such as written in the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Our secular governance is ruled by agreed upon social laws, not religious doctrines. This is something the Islamists have difficulty understanding, mainly because their doctrine is to dominate the whole world to their Sharia based legal system, which insists they must conquer the world for their god Allah as mandated by Mohammad's teachings 14 centuries ago. The world changed, and such supremacist power grabbing, dictatorial ideology is no longer acceptable in the modern world. Until Islam accepts the "separation of mosque and state" it must be treated with suspicion of undermining our Constitutional Laws that protect our individual freedoms, especially the freedom to believe in any religion we choose of our own free will, with the right to petition our government if such freedoms are abrogated. Anything less is tyranny.

As Daniel Pipes says on another thread:

quote:

Islamism is a very specific approach, one that holds that Muslims would be powerful and rich were Muslims to follow the Islamic law in its complete detail. Islamists aspire to apply that law everywhere in the world, and see non-Muslims as inferior, and to be defeated. It’s an ideology that has its roots at the origins of Islam, but developed in its present state about 80 years ago. It is part of Islam, but not the whole of Islam.



We must guard against this 'approach' that "holds that Muslims would be powerful and rich were Muslims to follow the Islamic law in complete detail." This is an unacceptable, and in today's world outdated, an ideology of conquest, which Islam must distance itself from if it is to be accepted as a 'personal faith' like all other world religions. They must declare a 'separation of mosque and state' to be acceptable on equal terms with other religions, or else they be condemned as not being truly a religion but a political force against our freedoms and rule of law. If Islam is to be protected by our First Amendment, it must make this claim of 'separation' clear, that they do not accept religious rule, or else be condemned by that same amendment.

Our US Constitution is our 'magna carta':
U.S. Const. (September 17, 1787) art. I-VII
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


180px-Us_declaration_independence.jpg (interactive)
Our US Declaration of Independence

Some will claim that the United States in its Declaration of Independence (linked image) is only a claim of separation of the 13 Colonies from the Rule of the British Crown, but this is a false assumption. In fact, the Declaration is of the right of man to rule oneself by Constitutional laws without the burden of religious laws, but by a secular rule of law with equality of all before the law, (as amended) for both men and women equally. The separation was more than from Britian, but from theocratic rule of the Old World altogether, both the Church as well as the Crown. It was a declaration of agreed upon social laws, such as is made possible in a democratic form of government (by consent of the governed), where We the People will rule ourselves on principles of guarantees to our personal rights by law, to believe and think as we will, and to accept any religion we choose without fear of persecution and punishments for our beliefs. This was a major watershed in our civilization, and one which launched a whole new era of human achievements, such as the world had never seen before. Wars had been fought to preserve this freedom, and they will be fought again. We are a free people because of it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 06:28 pm:   

Glenn Greenwald
Friday Aug. 1, 2008 05:36 EDT
Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/

A very good article on those shadow people who mislead us on Iraq's involvement in the Anthrax attacks.

With the death of the scientist involved in this the government is now able to close the case on this event. However, what happened to those people that lead us down the logic path that linked Iraq with the anthrax attacks?

Yes Ivan we are a free people, but there are those that have led us down a primrose path to war with lies and leaks to the media. This effort was well coordinated, thought out and tied to the media cycle following 9/11 to get us to accept a war and restrictions on our liberty.

What of those men and women?

What else are they capable of doing?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 07:24 pm:   

The Pentagon's Office of Special Plans linked the NECONS into a network of vast power.

From this hub disinformation was passed to the media from cutouts and personnel that opposed it blackballed from government service.

Links to articles that talk to this follow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Decline and Fall
Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2008 - 05:45 am:   

May 20, 2007

Decline and fall of the neocons
Paul Wolfowitz’s departure from the World Bank signals the end of an ideological era in WashingtonSarah Baxter

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1812924.ece

For a time they held they reigns of power and then those that opposed them rebelled. In the darkness and shadows, from streets to university classrooms a shadow rebellion was waged.

They crushed their enemies using the media and leaks and used their positions of power to pick and choose who would be hired or fired by the federal government.

God bless the Alliance of Patriots and the descendents of the founding families that led the rebellion in the shadows. They are the ones who preserved the integrity of our Constitution in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

They freed us from these men and women and gave us our nation back.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kosovo/Ossetia?
Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 11:48 am:   

Is Ossetia new Kosovo?

Muslim North and South Ossetia Seeks Independence Nationhood Status Autonomous State Like Kosovo but Christian Ossetians were Happy with Georgia Respecting New Testament Shunning Sharia Law of Growing Caucasus Mountains’ Muslim Population of Ossetia Seeks Islamic Theocracy Independent of Russia and Georgia on Black Sea’s Eastern Shores

Is this the real picture, or another 'conspiracy' theory?

quote:

The Christians of south Ossetia (the portion which is part of Georgia) were happy being a part of Georgia, where islamic jihad is being battled, and Christianity is encourged, but now with Russia having moved in, Ossetia looks to become a puppet of Russia, along with the rest of Georgia, thanks to the Muslims of Ossetia having sought independent nationhood for an islamic government, like Kosovo...



_44924174_georgia_v7_466.jpg

Real or imagined? Taking the Muslim side of any equation never pays off with peace, but with more and more war...

BBC article: Russia pledge on Georgia pull-out

_44931684_troops_getty226index.jpg

The peace equation, like Kosovo, always remains "unresolved".
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Amnon
Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 06:29 pm:   

Studying the Islamic Way of War
To know an enemy, one must first acknowledge his existence.

By Raymond Ibrahim

"As recently as 2006, former top Pentagon official William Gawthrop lamented that “the senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered [emphasis added].” Today, seven full years after September 11, our understanding of the Islamic way of war is little better.
...
"For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present (catapults in Muhammad’s seventh century context; hijacked planes or WMD today); the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treaties whenever possible (see Sahih Muslim 15: 4057); and that the only function of the peace treaty, or “hudna,” is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years.

Quranic verses 3:28 and 16:106, as well as Muhammad’s famous assertion, “War is deceit,” have all led to the formulation of a number of doctrines of dissimulation — the most notorious among them being the doctrine of “Taqiyya,” which permits Muslims to lie and dissemble whenever they are under the authority of the infidel. Deception has such a prominent role that renowned Muslim scholar Ibn al-Arabi declares: “[I]n the Hadith, practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than [the need for] courage.”

In addition to ignoring these well documented Islamist strategies, more troubling still is the Defense Department’s continuing failure to appreciate the pertinent “eternal” doctrines of Islam — such as the Abode of War versus the Abode of Islam dichotomy, which maintains that Islam must always be in a state of animosity vis-ŕ-vis the infidel world and, whenever possible, must wage wars until all infidel territory has been brought under Islamic rule. In fact, this dichotomy of hostility is unambiguously codified under Islam’s worldview and is deemed a fard kifaya — that is, an obligation on the entire Muslim body that can only be fulfilled as long as some Muslims, say, “jihadists,” actively uphold it.

"Despite these problematic — but revealing — doctrines, despite the fact that a quick perusal of Islamist websites and books demonstrate time and again that current and would-be jihadists constantly quote, and thus take seriously, these doctrinal aspects of war, senior U.S. government officials charged with defending America do not." ...
Read it all.

Discussion follows on: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022641.php

Fight not on "religion" but on the evil ideology of Jihad warfare, on our terms, not theirs.

Amnon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jack D. Hook
Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 11:28 am:   

BABYLON THE GREAT IS FALLING

coverjpgnew.jpg -linked image

I would like to welcome you to visit my web site, if you are interested in knowing about today's political-religious-military events, including those in Israel and America, and how they relate to Bible prophecy from one Vietnam veteran’s perspective.  The five years I served as a commissioned officer in the United States Army helped me to understand why nations war against each other.  Many who are interested in prophecy are pointing out that elitist organizations like the Illuminati, Freemasons, Skull and Bones, are involved in a great conspiracy to create a New World Order under a one-world government and religion.  Others, like me, can see some of what they are exposing and the reality of it all, but know in our hearts that fallen angels are the real movers and shakers among these blind men who rule the nations.  I cannot tell you how important this truth about fallen angels is, for without it we will all follow the coming Antichrist.

Jack D. Hook
jdhook@cox.net

www.babylonthegreatisfalling.net

(submitted via e-mail to Humancafe.com)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Igor who knows
Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2008 - 07:57 pm:   

Geert Wilders of the Netherlands speaks out.

Here is his speech to the United States, at the Four Seasons in New York:
"Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.
It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.
My short lecture consists of 4 parts.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.
The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.
But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.
Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.
Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.
Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.
The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.
Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.
Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.
I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.
Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.
A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.
Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.
It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.
This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”
If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.
Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.
Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.
Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.
This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.
This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.
This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.
These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:
“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”."

Follow up discussions are here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022867.php

Igor who knows
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon/finance wars
Posted on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 08:48 am:   

In the financial 'wars' who's making the money? Who will give it back?

Fear grips global stock markets, BBC News.

Remember the first shot fired in this 'financial war' was against the WTC, 1993-2001. How do we counter-attack? Iraq? Afghanistan? Or squeeze them out with financial weapons? Collusion can work both ways...

anon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Amnon/OPEC war?
Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008 - 11:51 am:   

OPEC War against America’s Economic Independence?
By Walid Phares

quote:

According to economic analysis the severe financial crisis ravaging the US and hitting the international community on all continents has its economic roots in two major realms: One was the overbearing political pressure put on Wall Street to release loans into unprepared sectors of society and two, was the miscalculation -some say the drunkenness- of Wall Street in accepting these immense risks. But according to Political Economy assessment, there may have been a third player in the crisis: OPEC, or more precisely, radical circles within Oil Producing regimes in the Peninsula. The thesis argue that combined Salafist-Wahabi and Muslim Brotherhood circles in the Gulf -with consent from the Iranian side on this particular issue, used the escalating pricing of Oil over the past year to push the financial crisis in the US over the cliff. The “high point” in this analysis is the timing between the skyrocketing of the prices at the pumps and the widening of the real estate crisis. In short the “Oil-push” put the market out of balance hitting back at Wall Street. Basically, there was certainly a crisis in mismanagement domestically (with its two above mentioned roots), but the possible OPEC economic “offensive” crumbled the defenses of US economy in few months.



Read it all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon/ off OPEC oil
Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008 - 07:25 pm:   

RE: OPEC War against America’s Economic Independence? - posted by Amnon

Amnon, I answered you here on "It's the economy stupid" 2008. "Get off OPEC oil!" where I wrote:

quote:

Bottom line, knock down oil, and don't help out OPEC. They be damned. Our economies will recover just fine without them. Get off OPEC oil!



Weaken OPEC and take them down. No more ME oil!

anon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/stealth jihad uncovered
Posted From: 69.238.53.185
Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2008 - 12:08 pm:   

A new battle front, Jihad by Stealth.

I came across this in my readings, to discover there is a new book out by Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs

StealthJihad.jpg (interactive - B&N books)

On another site there is this about same topic: Jihad by Stealth, also penned by Robert Spencer.


quote:

As a Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akram, put it in 1991 memorandum outlining the organization’s strategy in the United States: “The Muslim Brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Akram explained that this sabotaging of Western civilization would take place not through terror attacks, but by numerous non-violent initiatives carried out by a variety of Islamic organizations. With the public geared to be on guard only against terror attacks, these efforts would slip by unnoticed.



But now the world has noticed, thanks to the untiring efforts of people like Robert Spencer in lifting the veil of this sinister attack on our freedoms and democracies, our equal human rights by constitutional law, which themselves are an affront on the radical interpretations of Islam. This new, though centuries old, front of our "war on terrorism" will perhaps prove to be the most difficult yet to preserve our freedoms. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Ivan

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration