Showing posts with label Algeria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Algeria. Show all posts

Thursday, January 8, 2015

The Jihadist Worldview: What's Behind the Mideast Brutality?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about jihad. This follows this post about addictions. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.


The Jihadist Worldview: What's Behind the Mideast Brutality?





The brutality of the Islamic State and various terrorist organizations is shocking and horrifying—beheadings, suicide attacks, slaughter of prisoners and women forced into sexual slavery. What's really behind such barbarism? The truth may surprise you!

Muslim militant with rifle.
Source: zabelin/123RF
The headlines out of the Middle East in recent months have been horrifying—American and British hostages beheaded, captured prisoners executed in the thousands, women forced or sold into a lifetime of sexual slavery, children brutally murdered and communities starved to death or murdered in cold blood for refusing to change their religion.
Much of the world is shocked by such brutality, and rightfully so. It seems incomprehensible to the Western mind.
What's driving such cruelty, a barbarism not seen in our lifetimes? If we are to understand, we need to cast off the blinders of political correctness and unflinchingly face the facts.
In reality, the answer is simple. Those who are behind these horrors share a common denominator. They are unapologetic in saying they are doing what they are told to do by their religion— Islam.
And while it is true that many Muslims are peaceful, and are equally horrified by these events, all we have to do is look at the words of the perpetrators of such atrocities to understand their motivations. They clearly and proudly state that they are doing what their religion tells them to do.

A religion of peace?

Ever since the horrific hijacked-airliner terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (with another jet apparently supposed to crash into the White House or U.S. Capitol building), Western leaders have gone out of their way to describe Islam as a religion of peace.
For example, just six days after those attacks that killed almost 3,000 Americans, then-President George W. Bush, speaking at the Islamic Center of Washington D.C., said: "These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith . . . The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam.  That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace" (emphasis added throughout).
In a speech to the United Nations on Sept. 24, 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama stated: "The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them—there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country. So we reject any suggestion of a clash of civilizations."
In a speech on Sept. 3, 2014—ironically, the day after the Islamic State (IS) released a video showing the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff—U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry applauded Islam as a "peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings."  He then explained that "the real face of Islam is . . .one where Muslim communities are advocating for universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the most basic freedom to practice one's faith openly and freely."
On Sept. 24, following the brutal decapitation of British hostage David Haines, British Prime Minister David Cameron insisted that his murderers "have nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace, a religion that inspires daily acts of kindness and generosity."

Who is a more reliable authority on Islam?

While these and other Western leaders repeatedly claim that Islam is a peaceful religion, we should also remind ourselves that those actively involved in committing these atrocities have spent their entire lifetimes immersed in Islamic belief and culture.
We should also note that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the declared caliph of the Islamic State, holds a doctorate in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad—distinguishing him as highly knowledgeable of Islamic law, history and culture. Unlike these Western leaders, he is thoroughly familiar with the beliefs of Islam and teachings of its holy book, the Quran.
As caliph—supreme ruler of the new Islamic nation carved out of Syria and Iraq—his determinations of what is allowable or forbidden is the law of the land. And as recent headlines have shown, Al-Baghdadi and his followers, like Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda before them, see no conflict between their tactics of murder and mayhem and their practice of Islam. In fact, they boast that what they do is the practice of Islam.
What, then, is the truth? Is Islam a religion of peace, as these politicians say, or is it something different? To understand the answer, we need to examine Islam's holy book, the Quran.

Islam—the supreme and only true religion

What are some of the teachings of the Quran that are leading to violence and bloodshed around the world?
The clear teaching of the Quran is that Islam is the supreme and only true religion, and that eventually the entire world will come under Islamic rule.
For example, Surah 61:9 states: "It is He [ Allah ] who has sent for His apostle [ Muhammad ] with guidance and the true faith [ Islam ] , so that he may exalt it above all religions, much as the idolaters may dislike it" (all quotes from the Dawood translation, 1999). In the Quran, "idolaters" refers to all who practice non-Islamic religion—including Christians and Jews.
In line with this belief in the supremacy of Islam, Surah 2:193 gives this clear command: "Fight against them until idolatry is no more and [ Allah's ] religion reigns supreme." Again, "idolatry" in the Quran refers to any religion other than Islam, which would include Christianity and Judaism and any other belief system. To those who follow this verse—and there are millions who do—if you don't worship Allah by the dictates of Muhammad, you are considered an idolater and therefore a legitimate target of this command.
In the worldview of Islamic scholars and leaders, the world is divided into two spheres—the sphere or lands of dar al-Islam, meaning "the domain of Islam" (where Islam is dominant) and dar al-harb, meaning "the domain of war." A fundamental aspect of this worldview is that all non-Muslim lands must eventually be absorbed or conquered by Islam, preferably by peaceful conversion, but by force if necessary—thus they are "the domain of war."
Another aspect of this that bears bringing out is that most of the Muslim world is united against Israel because it is considered an abomination for land that was once dar al-Islam, part of the land of Islam,to revert to dar al-harb, to fall back under control of the infidel (Christians or Jews).
This is a key reason why Muslims are so determined to bring the physical territory of Israel back under Muslim domination. Keep in mind that the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in 1964, three years before Israel captured the West Bank and Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War—so Muslim determination to "liberate" Israeli lands long predates Israel's control of these areas and extends to all of Israel, period.
This is why Muslim leaders openly boast of their desire to liberate the land "from the sea to the sea"— from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, meaning no more Israel. This is why the founding documents of terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah openly call for the elimination of Israel.
Western governments, failing to understand this Muslim belief, regularly pressure Israel to negotiate with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for a peaceful solution. But in fact there is no peaceful solution when the negotiating partners believe with all their heart and soul that Israel's land belongs to them and that it must be ethnically cleansed of Jews—as stated repeatedly by Hamas and Palestinian Authority leaders.

Jihad— holy war against non-believers

If Islam is to become the supreme and only true religion in the world as taught by the Quran, how is that goal to be accomplished? The answer is jihad or holy war. The Quran commands violence and conquest to spread Islam. It contains literally dozens of such commands, but we'll quote just a few:
Surah 9:5 states: "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them."
Surah 9:73 reads: "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate."
Surah 9:123 commands: "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that [ Allah ] is with the righteous."
Harvard University professor of government Samuel Huntington, commenting on the disproportionate involvement of Muslims in warfare and terrorism around the globe, coined the phrase "the bloody borders of Islam" in his 1997 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. At that pre-9/11 time he had no idea how prophetic the phrase would be.
In the 2005 book Religion, Culture and International Conflict: A Conversation (Michael Cromartie, editor), Professor Huntington wrote: "While groups from all religions have engaged in various forms of violence and terrorism, the figures make it clear that in the past decade Muslims have been involved in far more of these activities than people of other religions . . .
If you look around the Muslim world you see that in the 1990s Muslims were fighting non-Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria, and other places. Muslims have been fighting one another also" (p. 5).
He went on to note that in the year 2000, 23 of the world's 32 armed conflicts involved Muslims. Similar numbers hold true today. A glance at a world map shows that nearly all of the world's wars are taking place around the edges of the Muslim world where Islam is pressing outward against non-Muslims. Whereas the Bible teaches us to love our neighbors (Leviticus:19:18; Matthew:22:39), the Quran teaches Muslims to "make war on the infidels who dwell around you"— to fight your neighbor.
It's also worth noting that many Muslims believe that the only sure way to enter paradise (in their view of the afterlife) is to become a martyr fighting for Islam. They draw this belief from Surah 22:58: "As for those that have fled their homes in the cause of [Allah] and afterwards died or were slain, [Allah] will surely make a generous provision for them [in paradise]. [Allah] is the most munificent provider. He will surely admit them with a welcome that will please them. All-knowing is [Allah], and gracious."
In Islamic thinking, as soon as a martyr sheds his first drop of blood, he is guaranteed a place in paradise. And when he arrives, he has waiting for him 72 young, dark-eyed, beautiful virgins to be his perpetual companions in paradise. This is one reason so many young Muslim men are willing to die as suicide bombers—because they are guaranteed entry into paradise as soon as they blow themselves up, since they are dying in the cause of jihad.
The Quran also says that Allah will punish those who do not wage jihad as he commands. Surah 9:39 warns: "If you do not go to war, [ Allah ] will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men." In other words, if you're a Muslim and don't wage jihad, you will be punished and Allah will choose someone else to fight in your place.

Using terror in waging jihad

The Quran also commands using terror and cruelty in waging jihad. Surah 8:59-60 states: "Let not the unbelievers think that they will ever get away. They have not the power so to do. Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah."
This is why the Sunni fighters of the Islamic State are so viciously cruel. Knowing this verse, they use terror to strike fear into their enemies to demoralize them and cause them to give up their will to fight. Those whom they capture—Shiites whom they consider apostates or non-Muslims—they brutally execute in accordance with what they read in their holy book. 
The Quran even mentions specific methods to sow terror, which the Islamic State fighters use. Surah 8:12 states: "[Allah] revealed his will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!'"
So what the Quran tells them to do, they do. When their holy book tells them to strike off heads, they do exactly that.
The civilized world has been horrified to see Islamic State fighters, like al-Qaeda fighters and Iraqi terror groups before them, brutally decapitate captive soldiers, as well as Western journalists and aid workers. Perhaps you have seen clips from some of the beheading videos shown on news reports or posted on the Internet. You may have wondered, as I did, what the Arabic-language shouting and chanting signified.
I already knew the meaning of the shouts of "Allahu Akbar"—"Allah is great" or, more properly, "Allah is greater" (than any who would oppose them). With a little research I learned the significance of the chanting often accompanying the shouts. The murderers are chanting verses like the one above telling them to behead infidels. They are simply quoting their scriptures in the Quran.
Yet Western leaders assure us, as President Obama did in a Nov. 16 White House statement after the beheading of American hostage Peter Kassig, that such acts "represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith . . ."
Another Surah that illustrates Allah's cruelty is Surah 5:34-35: "Those that make war against [Allah] and His apostle [Mohammad] and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter."
Here Allah commands torture, crippling and maiming of prisoners. Crucifixion is a horrible form of torture and execution, and they practice it with relish. A brief search of the Internet will produce hundreds of photos showing Islamists carrying out and celebrating such practices.

Slavery and the Quran

What does the Quran teach about slavery? Although little is said about it in Western media, slavery remains alive and well in parts of the Muslim world. While the slave trade in the Americas during the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s has been rightfully condemned, the focus has largely been on the white slave owners and slave traders, with little said of the Arab Muslims who first enslaved Africans and sold them to whites.
This, too, was approved in the Quran. Surah 47:4 says: "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly." Those who follow the Quran literally have long understood this to mean that when Muslims defeat their enemies, they are allowed to either kill them or enslave them.
According to early Muslim writings, Muhammad—who is viewed as the ideal man whom Muslims are to emulate—sold, traded and confiscated slaves, making himself a slave trader.
A particularly appalling aspect of recent Muslim conquests is women and girls being taken captive to be used as sexual slaves. This happened with the capture of Yazidi towns in northern Iraq by the Islamic State and the kidnapping of hundreds of schoolgirls by the Islamic Boko Haram movement in Nigeria. This, too, is specifically allowed in the Quran. Notice these verses:
Surah 23:1-6 says: "Blessed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers, who avoid profane talk, and give alms to the destitute, who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them . . .)."
Surah 33:50 states: "We [that is, Allah speaking of himself in the plural] well know the duties We have imposed on the faithful concerning their wives and slave-girls. ( We grant you this privilege [satisfying their sexual desires with slave girls]) so that none may blame you."
A Nov. 5, 2014, report by the International Business Times was headlined "Shocking: ISIS Official 'Slave' Price List Shows Yazidi, Christian Girls Aged '1 to 9' Being Sold for $172." The article went on to describe a price list for sexual slaves on an Islamist website: "In the name of Allah, most gracious and merciful. We have received news that the demand in women and cattle markets has sharply decreased and that will [affect] Islamic State revenues as well as the funding of the Mujaheddin [jihadist fighter] in the battlefield. We have made some changes. Below are the prices of Yazidi and Christian women."
At the same time a video posted online appeared to show Islamic State fighters at what one of them called "slave market day" while quoting Surah 23:1-6 (cited above). The men discuss prices for girls and women from $100-300 depending on the age and eye color—with green or blue eyes bringing a higher price.
An October online edition of Dabiq magazine (published by an Islamic State jihadist group) boasted after the capture of the Iraqi town of Sinjar that "the enslaved Yazidi families are now sold by the Islamic State soldiers." It then explained that "the Yazidi women and children were then divided according to the Shariah [Islamic law] amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations." Thus, as war booty, they were divided up and sold as pieces of property.

Turning a blind eye to the grim reality

The sad truth about the Middle East today is that we are seeing a revival of the original Islam Muhammad brought to the world in the seventh century.
Muhammad's new religion caught fire, fueled by power and plunder. The Islamic State is repeating Muhammad's early conquests—burning churches, looting monasteries, enslaving and forcibly converting the powerless, and callously executing those who stand up to them. It is vigorously enforcing sharia law—cutting off the hands of thieves, stoning adulterers and blasphemers, whipping criminals and banning anything that stands in the way of Islam.
In defiance of the major Western powers, it has brutally butchered American and British citizens, decapitating them and posting videos of the murders on the Internet for the world to see. The message is unmistakable: Allah is on their side, and they have nothing to fear from the major world powers.
Until Western leaders wake up from their willful blindness and face the grim reality of the jihadist worldview that is motivating the Islamic State as well as Hamas, Hezbollah and countless other groups and movements, that part of the world will remain a powder keg waiting to explode and take down much of modern civilization with it. And shockingly, Bible prophecy indicates that is the likely outcome to which events in that region are heading.

Friday, May 9, 2014

Naming The Benghazi Committee

An interesting article from www.hughhewitt.com about the Benghazi Committee. This follows this post about Secretary John Kerry that you can write a letter or send a fax about. This follows this post about the Texas Primary Runoffs. This follows this post about the Kansas City shooting.  You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!


Naming The Benghazi Committee

posted by Hugh Hewitt


By the end of the day, we will not only know the names selected in the First Round of the NFL Draft, far more importantly we will know whom Speaker John Boehner has selected to serve alongside Chairman Trey Gowdy on the Select Committee on Benghazi.  We will also know the scope of the Select Committee’s jurisdiction and the extent of its subpoena authority, both of which should be large.
The scope of the Select Committee’s jurisdiction, for example, should fully enable the Committee to investigate the spread of Islamist radicalism throughout Africa, not just in Libya, including the rise of the horrific Boko Harum for which an outrage a week –this one makes the mind reel– seems the goal.  The Islamists who attacked in Benghazi might have nothing to do with those in Algeria, Somalia and Nigeria, and none of those anything to do with the councils meeting in Yemen and along the Afghan-Pakistani border, but the Select Committee needs to be able to chart the ideology as well as the actors that drove events the night of 9/11/12.
Because the Select Committee’s work requires prosecutors’ precision and caution, as well as military competence and a dose of “follow the money” when it comes to security spending on embassies around the world, I hope to see these six Republican representatives alongside Chairman Gowdy: Rep. Jason Chaffetz, along with Gowdy a member of the Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, Representatives Ron DeSantis, Adam Kinzinger, and Mike Pompeo –three vets from the Navy, the Air Force and the Army respectively, and DeSantis and Pompeo lawyers with DeSantis  a former prosecutor– Rep, Susan Brooks, a former U.S. Attorney, Rep. Lynn Jenkins, a CPA and a member of House leadership.
Whatever the make-up of the Select Committee, I hope they begin their hearings with a day of hearings devoted to learning the biographies of the men murdered that night –Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Daugherty and Ty Woods, as well as the names of the wounded, with testimony from family and friends on why they served.  The days that follow should bring forward the background on Libya, both as to Qaddafi and his rule (including the de-WMDing of the country after the Iraq invasion) and the fractured aftermath, the rise of the Islamists in the country and specifically in Benghazi, and the mission Stevens was on that night before turning to the actual events of that night and their subsequent manipulation and cover-up.  (That there is a cover-up cannot be seriously debated after the release of the Rhodes memo just last week.)
As Paul Ryan notes below, it would a very large mistake for Democrats to turn their backs on the dead and to ignore the cover-up in a last gasp effort to protect the president and former Secretary of State Clinton from accountability for their actions (and inaction) that night and in the weeks and months leading up to it.  But if they do, put the five empty chairs at every hearing and proceed.  The Speaker’s job is not to please Nancy Pelosi but to guide the House in its oversight function.  Candor by the Administration would have made a select committee unnecessary.  A cover-up compels its creation and methodical operation through to complete understanding of the events surrounding Benghazi.








Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Alhamdillullah [Praise allah], Obama Lifts Scrutiny of Fliers From Muslim Nations

A very interesting post from www.debbieschlussel.com about the U.S. ending scrutiny of passengers from Islamic nations. This follows this post about  the teen stowaway on a Hawaiian airplane. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more about what you can do to get more involved click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!




Alhamdillullah [Praise allah], Obama Lifts Scrutiny of Fliers From Muslim Nations


By Debbie Schlussel
Just over a week after Barack Obama officially hired Muslim extremist Nawar Shora to be a Senior Policy Advisor for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Obama administration removed strict screening requirements for travelers to the U.S. from 14 “terrorism-prone” (translation:  Muslim) countries.
obamasmiling.jpgtsacheckpoint
If you are traveling to the U.S. from Algeria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other assorted world paradises of the Islamic persuasion, now is your time to do Undie-Bomber, The Sequel.
The extra checkpoint scrutiny for these people has been removed, and, predictably, applauded by the usual whiner suspects from  CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (whose chief honcho’s wife, Dr. Layla Al-Marayati, heads a HAMAS-enabling charity).
The Obama administration is lifting an emergency order that has required extra airport screening of all passengers flying to the USA from 14 terror-prone countries, two senior administration officials said Thursday.
The emergency order was implemented after the attempted bombing of an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day.
The new system will treat all passengers flying into the USA the same way, regardless of nationality, said the officials, who were briefed on the policy. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the policy is not being announced until today.
Back to the same old failed “security” policy, which failed to catch the Undie-bomber.
The policy is the Obama administration’s latest effort to tighten international aviation security since a Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, boarded a flight in Amsterdam allegedly carrying explosives in his underwear. Authorities said Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up the jet, which landed safely in Detroit.
“Tighten” security? Like eating a brick of cheese “tightens” calorie intake.
In early January, the administration required foreign airports to give extra checkpoint scrutiny to anyone flying to the United States from one of 14 countries or who is a citizen of one of those countries.
Islamic groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council assailed the policy as profiling because most of the countries, such as Algeria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, are predominantly Muslim.
The policy being phased in this month will use intelligence snippets about terrorists whose full names are not known.
Authorities will put together information such as a terrorist’s partial name, facial features, recent travel history or home country. U.S.-bound passengers who match those descriptions will face extra checkpoint screening at foreign airports, according to one of the administration officials.
The system is tailored toward intelligence information and possible threats, rather than stopping people of a particular nationality, the official said.
Since government computer systems used for these purposes have repeatedly failed and have been shown to be boondoggles, good luck with that.
Though the Bush administration–always pandering to Muslims, as well–never had extra scrutiny for travelers from Islamic countries, it should have.  And just because Obama briefly, only slightly got it for a scintilla of time–only because a Muslim’s underwear failed to detonate–doesn’t mean it’s time to get rid of these brief, necessary security measures.  In fact, they were not enough because there should be extra scrutiny for Muslims coming to America from all nations, not just 14 Muslim nations.
As I always say, America . . . Desperate But Not Serious.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Avoiding the Wars That Never End


A very interesting post from www.Stratfor.com about the current U.S. policy in wars. This follows this post about the rebels in Syria. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and read a very interesting book HERE


Avoiding the Wars That Never End


Stratfor

By George Friedman

Founder and Chief Executive Officer



Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that the United States would transfer the primary responsibility for combat operations in Afghanistan to the Afghan military in the coming months, a major step toward the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Also last week, France began an intervention in Mali designed to block jihadists from taking control of the country and creating a base of operations in France's former African colonies.



The two events are linked in a way that transcends the issue of Islamist insurgency and points to a larger geopolitical shift. The United States is not just drawing down its combat commitments; it is moving away from the view that it has the primary responsibility for trying to manage the world on behalf of itself, the Europeans and its other allies. Instead, that burden is shifting to those who have immediate interests involved.



Insecurity in 9/11's Wake

It is interesting to recall how the United States involved itself in Afghanistan. After 9/11, the United States was in shock and lacked clear intelligence on al Qaeda. It did not know what additional capabilities al Qaeda had or what the group's intentions were. Lacking intelligence, a political leader has the obligation to act on worst-case scenarios after the enemy has demonstrated hostile intentions and capabilities. The possible scenarios ranged from additional sleeper cells operating and awaiting orders in the United States to al Qaeda having obtained nuclear weapons to destroy cities. When you don't know, it is both prudent and psychologically inevitable to plan for the worst.



The United States had sufficient information to act in Afghanistan. It knew that al Qaeda was operating in Afghanistan and that disrupting the main cell was a useful step in taking some action against the threat. However, the United States did not immediately invade Afghanistan. It bombed the country extensively and inserted limited forces on the ground, but the primary burden of fighting the Taliban government was in the hands of anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan that had been resisting the Taliban and in the hands of other forces that could be induced to act against the Taliban. The Taliban gave up the cities and prepared for a long war. Al Qaeda's command cell left Afghanistan and shifted to Pakistan.



The United States achieved its primary goal early on. That goal was not to deny al Qaeda the ability to operate in Afghanistan, an objective that would achieve nothing. Rather, the goal was to engage al Qaeda and disrupt its command-and-control structure as a way to degrade the group's ability to plan and execute additional attacks. The move to Pakistan at the very least bought time, and given continued pressure on the main cell, allowed the United States to gather more intelligence about al Qaeda assets around the world.



This second mission -- to identify al Qaeda assets around the world -- required a second effort. The primary means of identifying them was through their electronic communications, and the United States proceeded to create a vast technological mechanism designed to detect communications and use that detection to identify and capture or kill al Qaeda operatives. The problem with this technique -- really the only one available -- was that it was impossible to monitor al Qaeda's communications without monitoring everyone's. If there was a needle in the haystack, the entire haystack had to be examined. This was a radical shift in the government's relationship to the private communications of citizens. The justification was that at a time of war, in which the threat to the United States was uncertain and possibly massive, these measures were necessary.



This action was not unique in American history. Abraham Lincoln violated the Constitution in several ways during the Civil War, from suspending the right to habeas corpus to blocking the Maryland Legislature from voting on a secession measure. Franklin Roosevelt allowed the FBI to open citizens' mail and put Japanese-Americans into internment camps. The idea that civil liberties must be protected in time of war is not historically how the United States, or most countries, operate. In that sense there was nothing unique in the decision to monitor communications in order to find al Qaeda and stop attacks. How else could the needle be found in the haystack? Likewise, detention without trial was not unique. Lincoln and Roosevelt both resorted to it.



The Civil War and World War II were different from the current conflict, however, because their conclusions were clear and decisive. The wars would end, one way or another, and so would the suspension of rights. Unlike those wars, the war in Afghanistan was extended indefinitely by the shift in strategy from disrupting al Qaeda's command cell to fighting the Taliban to building a democratic society in Afghanistan. With the second step, the U.S. military mission changed its focus and increased its presence massively, and with the third, the terminal date of the war became very far away.



But there was a broader issue. The war in Afghanistan was not the main war. Afghanistan happened to be the place where al Qaeda was headquartered on Sept. 11, 2001. The country was not essential to al Qaeda, and creating a democratic society there -- if it were even possible -- would not necessarily weaken al Qaeda. Even destroying al Qaeda would not prevent new Islamist organizations or individuals from rising up.



A New Kind of War

The main war was not against one specific terrorist group, but rather against an idea: the radical tendency in Islamism. Most Muslims are not radicals, but any religion with 1 billion adherents will have its share of extremists. The tendency is there, and it is deeply rooted. If the goal of the war were the destruction of this radical tendency, then it was not going to happen. While the risk of attacks could be reduced -- and indeed there were no further 9/11s despite repeated attempts in the United States -- there was no way to eliminate the threat. No matter how many divisions were deployed, no matter how many systems for electronic detection were created, they could only mitigate the threat, not eliminate it. Therefore, what some called the Long War really became permanent war.



The means by which the war was pursued could not result in victory. They could, however, completely unbalance U.S. strategy by committing massive resources to missions not clearly connected with preventing Islamist terrorism. It also created a situation where emergency intrusions on critical portions of the Bill of Rights -- such as the need to obtain a warrant for certain actions -- became a permanent feature. Permanent war makes for permanent temporary measures.



The break point came, in my opinion, in about 2004. Around that time, al Qaeda was unable to mount attacks on the United States despite multiple efforts. The war in Afghanistan had dislodged al Qaeda and created the Karzai government. The invasion of Iraq -- whatever the rationale might have been -- clearly produced a level of resistance that the United States could not contain or could contain only by making agreements with its enemies in Iraq. At that point, a radical rethinking of the war had to take place. It did not.



The radical rethinking had to do not with Iraq or Afghanistan, but rather with what to do about a permanent threat to the United States, and indeed to many other countries, posed by the global networks of radical Islamists prepared to carry out terrorist attacks. The threat would not go away, and it could not be eliminated. At the same time, it did not threaten the existence of the republic. The 9/11 attacks were atrocious, but they did not threaten the survival of the United States in spite of the human cost. Combating the threat required a degree of proportionality so the fight could be maintained on an ongoing basis, without becoming the only goal of U.S. foreign policy or domestic life. Mitigation was the only possibility; the threat would have to be endured.



Washington found a way to achieve this balance in the past, albeit against very different sorts of threats. The United States emerged as a great power in the early 20th century. During that time, it fought three wars: World War I, World War II and the Cold War, which included Korea, Vietnam and other, smaller engagements. In World War I and World War II, the United States waited for events to unfold, and in Europe in particular it waited until the European powers reached a point where they could not deal with the threat of German hegemony without American intervention. In both instances, it intervened heavily only late in the war, at the point where the Germans had been exhausted by other European powers. It should be remembered that the main American push in World War II did not take place until the summer of 1944. The American strategy was to wait and see whether the Europeans could stabilize the situation themselves, using distance to mobilize as late as possible and intervene decisively only at the critical moment.



The critics of this approach, particularly prior to World War II, called it isolationism. But the United States was not isolationist; it was involved in Asia throughout this period. Rather, it saw itself as being the actor of last resort, capable of acting at the decisive moment with overwhelming force because geography had given the United States the option of time and resources.



During the Cold War, the United States modified this strategy. It still depended on allies, but it now saw itself as the first responder. Partly this could be seen in U.S. nuclear strategy. This could also be seen in Korea and Vietnam, where allies played subsidiary roles, but the primary effort was American. The Cold War was fought on a different set of principles than the two world wars.



The Cold War strategy was applied to the war against radical Islamism, in which the United States -- because of 9/11 but also because of a mindset that could be seen in other interventions -- was the first responder. Other allies followed the United States' lead and provided support to the degree to which they felt comfortable. The allies could withdraw without fundamentally undermining the war effort. The United States could not.



The approach in the U.S.-jihadist war was a complete reversal from the approach taken in the two world wars. This was understandable given that it was triggered by an unexpected and catastrophic event, the reponse to which flowed from a lack of intelligence. When Japan struck Pearl Harbor, emotions were at least as intense, but U.S. strategy in the Pacific was measured and cautious. And the enemy's capabilities were much better understood.



Stepping Back as Global Policeman

The United States cannot fight a war against radical Islamism and win, and it certainly cannot be the sole actor in a war waged primarily in the Eastern Hemisphere. This is why the French intervention in Mali is particularly interesting. France retains interests in its former colonial empire in Africa, and Mali is at the geographic center of these interests. To the north of Mali is Algeria, where France has significant energy investments; to the east of Mali is Niger, where France has a significant stake in the mining of mineral resources, particularly uranium; and to the south of Mali is Ivory Coast, where France plays a major role in cocoa production. The future of Mali matters to France far more than it matters to the United States.



What is most interesting is the absence of the United States in the fight, even if it is providing intelligence and other support, such as mobilizing ground forces from other African countries. The United States is not acting as if this is its fight; it is acting as if this is the fight of an ally, whom it might help in extremis, but not in a time when U.S. assistance is unnecessary. And if the French can't mount an effective operation in Mali, then little help can be given.



This changing approach is also evident in Syria, where the United States has systematically avoided anything beyond limited and covert assistance, and Libya, where the United States intervened after the French and British launched an attack they could not sustain. That was, I believe, a turning point, given the unsatisfactory outcome there. Rather than accepting a broad commitment against radical Islamism everywhere, the United States is allowing the burden to shift to powers that have direct interests in these areas.



Reversing a strategy is difficult. It is uncomfortable for any power to acknowledge that it has overreached, which the United States did both in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even more difficult to acknowledge that the goals set by President George W. Bush in Iraq and Obama in Afghanistan lacked coherence. But clearly the war has run its course, and what is difficult is also obvious. We are not going to eliminate the threat of radical Islamism. The commitment of force to an unattainable goal twists national strategy out of shape and changes the fabric of domestic life. Obviously, overwatch must be in place against the emergence of an organization like al Qaeda, with global reach, sophisticated operatives and operational discipline. But this is very different from responding to jihadists in Mali, where the United States has limited interests and fewer resources.



Accepting an ongoing threat is also difficult. Mitigating the threat of an enemy rather than defeating the enemy outright goes against an impulse. But it is not something alien to American strategy. The United States is involved in the world, and it can't follow the founders' dictum of staying out of European struggles. But the United States has the option of following U.S. strategy in the two world wars. The United States was patient, accepted risks and shifted the burden to others, and when it acted, it acted out of necessity, with clearly defined goals matched by capabilities. Waiting until there is no choice but to go to war is not isolationism. Allowing others to carry the primary risk is not disengagement. Waging wars that are finite is not irresponsible.



The greatest danger of war is what it can do to one's own society, changing the obligations of citizens and reshaping their rights. The United States has always done this during wars, but those wars would always end. Fighting a war that cannot end reshapes domestic life permanently. A strategy that compels engagement everywhere will exhaust a country. No empire can survive the imperative of permanent, unwinnable warfare. It is fascinating to watch the French deal with Mali. It is even more fascinating to watch the United States wishing them well and mostly staying out of it. It has taken about 10 years, but here we can see the American system stabilize itself by mitigating the threats that can't be eliminated and refusing to be drawn into fights it can let others handle.

.



Read more: Avoiding the Wars That Never End
Stratfor

Friday, November 4, 2011

Firebombed French paper reprints Muhammad cartoon that got it bombed

A very interesting post from the very interesting website http://www.jihadwatch.org/ about a French newspaper getting bombed for printing a picture of Muhammad. This follows this post about the Muslim Brotherhood's "Arab Spring" and Barack Obama.  This follows this article about the recent news about the former ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence and prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran  and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Firebombed French paper reprints Muhammad cartoon that got it bombed


Click here to see the picture yourself

Defiance in the face of Islamic supremacist intimidation and thuggery. Bravo. "French paper reprints Mohammad cartoon after fire-bomb," by Brian Love for Reuters, November 3:



(Reuters) - A French satirical weekly whose office was fire bombed after it printed a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad has reproduced the image with other caricatures in a special supplement distributed with one of the country's leading newspapers.

The weekly Charlie Hebdo defended "the freedom to poke fun" in the four-page supplement, which was wrapped around copies of the left-wing daily Liberation on Thursday, a day after an arson attack gutted Charlie Hebdo's Paris headquarters.



No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, which took place hours before an edition of Charlie Hebdo hit news stands featuring a cover-page cartoon of Mohammad and a speech bubble with the words: "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter."



The weekly, known for its irreverent treatment of the political establishment and religious figures, bore the headline "Charia Hebdo," in a reference to Muslim sharia law, and said that week's issue had been guest-edited by Mohammad.



The incident pits Europe's tradition of free speech and secularism against Islam's injunction barring any depictions seen as mocking the prophet. The publication of cartoons of Mohammad in a Danish newspaper in 2005 sparked unrest in the Muslim world in which at least 50 people were killed.



While French Muslim groups criticized Charlie Hebdo's work, they also condemned the fire-bomb attack. The head of the Paris Mosque, Dalil Boubakeur, told a news conference on Thursday: "I am extremely attached to freedom of the press, even if the press is not always tender with Muslims, Islam or the Paris Mosque."



"French Muslims have nothing to do with political Islam," he said.



Abderrahmane Dahmane, a Muslim former presidential adviser on religious diversity, said he was not shocked by the Charlie Hebdo front-page and joked himself about the matter.



"We have a sense of humor in the world of Islam ... what we sometimes say about Islam and the prophet, among ourselves and in the presence of Imams, is worse than what Charlie Hebdo wrote," he quipped.





Pull my other leg, Dahmane. If that were true, then why was Charlie Hebdo firebombed, and why is the OIC pursuing an all-out campaign to force the West to criminalize criticism of Islam?



Following the fire bombing, Charlie Hebdo staff moved temporarily into the offices of Liberation. The two publications jointly produced Thursday's supplement, which reproduced the Charlie Hebdo cartoon in an article on the back page.

One headline in the supplement said: "After their office blaze, this team defends the 'freedom to poke fun'."



"We thought the lines had moved and that maybe there would be more respect for our satirical work, our right to mock. Freedom to have a good laugh is as important as freedom of speech," Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier said in the supplement.



The supplement included several new drawings by Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. In one, a prophet-like figure tries to restrain his billowing robes in a pose reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe as a draft blows up from Charlie Hebdo newspapers below him. Another shows an airborne fire-bomb with a face in the flames and the caption, "So, is this how you see the prophet?"...



Charbonnier told Reuters his newspaper planned to print another 175,000 copies of this week's edition in the coming days after the first print run of 75,000 copies sold out fast.



Luz, the cartoonist who drew the cover cartoon at the center of the controversy, said it was still unclear who had carried out the attack.



"Let's be cautious. There's every reason to believe it's the work of fundamentalists but it could just as well be the work of two drunks," he said in the Thursday supplement.





Hey Luz, keep up the wishful thinking at that high a level, and pretty soon you'll be working for the Obama Administration.

Posted by Robert

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Will America's Billions in Military Aid to Egypt Backfire?

An interesting article from www.ucg.org/commentary about Egypt. This follows this post about Valentine's Day.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Will America's Billions in Military Aid to Egypt Backfire?


A commentary by Don Hooser

 Dallas, Texas


Most of America's founders had great faith in God and relied on Him much more than do the present leaders and citizens of the United States.



For a nation to be persistently blessed with God's provision and protection, the people must be faithful to God, and they must trust in and rely on Him.



We are to be at least as faithful to God as a person should be to his or her spouse. Our Creator is rightfully jealous. He regards any unfaithfulness to Him as spiritual adultery.



This requires more than lip service. Actions speak louder than words.



The problems of foreign aid and political alliances

One example of spiritual infidelity is when our country's leaders have more trust in political and military alliances than they have in God. And the obvious evidence of this is when we unnecessarily send hard-earned tax dollars to other countries as political and military foreign aid (as opposed to disaster relief and humanitarian aid).



Tragically, much foreign aid is siphoned off to enrich the leaders rather than to benefit the common citizen. In fact, the aid often props up corrupt leaders, enabling them to retain their power over the people.



Most of America's foreign aid and military aid to other countries is an effort to buy cooperation and friendship. In doing so, the United States has "hired lovers" (Hosea 8:9).



But "friends" who are purchased are not real friends. The "aid" is like a bribe. They know you don't have real love for them. They know you have the selfish motive of buying their favors.



In fact, the United States often sends more money to unreliable "friends" than to its reliable friends! We reward nations for being unreliable! We choose strange bedfellows.



But the most serious aspect of this mess is failing to rely on God's guidance, provision and protection.



Egypt a dangerous example

Peace treaties and other negotiations with dictators usually come to an end when the dictator dies or is ousted. That shows how futile it is to rely on countries that are ruled by dictators.



Egypt has been one of the top recipients of American assistance, receiving about $1.5 billion in aid each year. But the violent demonstrations against the Mubarak regime show that no amount of aid can guarantee stability, prosperity or even a reliably pro-American foreign policy.



Much of the aid to Egypt has been military aid. Egypt has an incredibly strong military. It is larger than Israel's, although some of Israel's military is more advanced and sophisticated. If control of Egypt falls into the wrong hands, that military power could easily be used against us.



With the recent enormous uprising in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to get its foot in the door hoping to gain control of the government. It was the Muslim Brotherhood that murdered Hosni Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat. A government that involves the Muslim Brotherhood will be hostile to personal liberties, repudiate Egypt's treaty with Israel and threaten the United States. It could refuse traffic through the Suez Canal to anyone at any time.



And although a majority of Egypt's people say they want democracy, 84 percent of them also say you should be killed if you leave Islam. With that belief, Egypt won't be a land of freedom—a land that guarantees the right to life, the rule of law, property rights, the protection of minorities, respect for human dignity and the right to worship God according to one's conscience.



Through His prophets, God frequently reprimanded Israel and Judah for committing spiritual adultery and "playing the harlot" with neighboring nations. Instead of being loyal to God and putting their full trust in Him to provide and protect, they relied instead on alliances with various nations (see Jeremiah 3:1-15 and Ezekiel 16:15-63).



God warned Israel that their alliances would backfire. He said, "I will stir up your lovers against you" (Ezekiel 23:22). After the fall of Judah to the Babylonians, God's prophet wrote, "Among all her lovers she has none to comfort her. All her friends have dealt treacherously with her; they have become her enemies" (Lamentations 1:2).



Would that America would rededicate herself to a committed covenant relationship with God!



But it is not going to happen soon enough to prevent calamity. Our nation's increasing infidelity toward our Creator will be our undoing. Bible prophecies tell us that America and her Western allies will eventually suffer terribly because of their unfaithfulness to God.



However, God promises that He will provide for and protect every individual who faithfully obeys, serves and trusts in Him! For more understanding of these prophecies and of the volatile Middle East, see our free booklets The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy and The Middle East in Bible Prophecy

Monday, February 7, 2011

What Will Happen to Egypt?

An interesting article from www.ucg.org/commentary  about the future of Egypt. This follows this post about inclement weather. For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

What Will Happen to Egypt?



A commentary by Mike Bennett

After Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution toppled autocratic leader Ben Ali's government Jan. 15, protests have erupted in other Arab nations from Algeria to Yemen. But it is Egypt in particular that has the world's attention.



Tens of thousands of protesters in the streets of Cairo have voiced frustrations about the economy (about a quarter of young people are unemployed throughout the Arab world) and corruption. But protesters don't all share a common view of the solution—beyond removing President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for 29 years. If the government falls, will anarchy, democracy, military rule or an Islamic regime emerge?



The United States and the rest of the Western world has come to depend on Egypt's stability for the 30 percent of the world's oil that is transported through the Suez Canal, as well as its assurance of peace with Israel. That peace has come at a high price of about $2 billion a year in American aid—mostly military aid—to Egypt. Who will control Egypt's vast array of the latest armaments?



Egypt in Bible prophecy

Throughout the Bible, Egypt was in contact and often conflict with the people of Israel. No wonder Egypt is mentioned 611 times in the Bible! Although none of the New Testament mentions of the nation of Egypt refer to end-time prophecies, there are plenty of them in the Old Testament. Here are just a few:



In the Bible's most detailed prophecy, Daniel 11, Daniel saw many specific events that then occurred over the next 400 years. The conflicts centered on the king of the North (the Seleucids, whose empire was swallowed up by the Roman Empire in 65 B.C.) and the king of the South (the Ptolemies, who ruled from Alexandria in Egypt).



Then the prophecy skips to end-time events. Daniel 11:36-38 appears to describe the actions of the Roman emperors and their successors, leading all the way up to a final king of the North of the end time.



"And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push [Hebrew nagach, to push or to attack] at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious land…and the land of Egypt shall not escape" (Daniel 11:40-42, King James Version).



Good news for Egypt and everyone

Soon after this, Jesus Christ will return to save humanity from self-destruction and will be proclaimed king of all nations, including Egypt (Matthew 24:22; Revelation 11:15).



Through those end-time events of the Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord, Egypt will be punished for rebellion against God, as all nations will. But God promises to heal Egypt: "They will return to the Lord, and He will be entreated by them and heal them" (Isaiah 19:22).



Then Isaiah records one of the greatest ironic twists of history. Egypt and Assyria, historically Israel's greatest foes, become blessed allies!



"In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land, whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, 'Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance'" (Isaiah 19:24-25). That is truly the good news of the peaceful Kingdom of God!



To understand the volatile Middle East today, and the real hope God promises for the future, read the carefully researched and detailed booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy.