Sunday, September 28, 2008

Indiscriminateness is a Disease

This article is a comment on article by “Yid with a Lid”, part of which is listed below.

If there is anything worse than a self-hating Jew[it] is a self-hating Jewish university. Brandeis, bills itself as a non-sectarian Jewish University. Jews work so hard to make sure that all voices are heard, but there is a line where it becomes ridiculous. Incredibly Brandeis, a supposed institution of higher education, has absolutely no idea where that line is. Brandies has a long history of graduating terrorists and now it provides sanctuary [to] the Islamic kind.

Today Brandeis hosts the influential pro-Palestinian Crown Center for Middle East Studies, run by a Jew (who else?). The Crown Center recently hired Arab scholar Khalil Shikaki. Testimony from a trial of another Arab professor, Sami Al-Arian from the University of South Florida, shows that Shikaki, while no terrorist himself, was a key distributor of funds and information between terrorists from the Palestinian Authority area and other Arab professors here in America who themselves were raising money for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. So at the very least, Shikaki is simply another “fixer.”

People with very good intentions make some big mistakes that have disastrous results. That is happening all over the Western World. Indiscriminateness, a result of denying to judge for fear of alienation and retaliation, has created a state of impotence within the society trying to get along with all including those that mean to do us all harm.

Indiscriminateness is a disease. Yes it is a mental disease that has caused the mind to arrive at the wrong conclusion. We tend to judge the actions that will be taken under certain conditions to act/react the same as we would. We expect kindness, tolerance, and understanding to achieve the same from others because that is what we have been thought to believe. Good people have a hard time accepting harsh reactions form those that profess goodness and higher ideals, even when they have evidence of bad behavior.

Can this disease be cured? In some people it can in others not. It is a battle for the mind of those that can’t see or are unwilling to accept the truth. Those that don’t see it are curable. The unwilling may be doomed to ignorance. The rest of us must make sure that they do not take us and Judeo-Christian values with them to oblivion. We all must speak up, present the evidence of the futility of indiscriminate thinking, and not give up until there more of us who got it right than there are of those who through stupidity would help ruin our way of life. We must recognize and never forget that there is good and evil in the universe and we have no other option but to choose good over evil.

Could We be Starving for Spiritual Fulfillment?

European and other Western youths are turning to Islam for more than just weird thrills. Secularism, which is good for governing a democratic society has crept into the every day life of the people. This intrusion into our lives is creating a vacuum in the human spirit. This is not to say that there are not those among us who can go through life perfectly happy faithless.

Throughout history and all over the world humans have found a way to quench their thirst for something more than what we are as individuals. We have always searched for a reason of being. This search has lead us to worshiping a power greater than anything we can explain. Early societies have turned to worshiping mythical gods or spirits such as those embodied in animals, other things of nature such as trees, star constellations, and finally monolithic beings.

Each of these beliefs answered the quest for understanding the why things are and the things that happen over which we have no control. They also gave us a logical reason to behave in an orderly and cooperative manner. It gave us a nucleus from which to build on. This gave us a way to determine just rules to live our lives by. It allowed us to label actions as being good or evil. We were able to develop laws, what is illegal, and how to deal with unacceptable behavior.

Through innovation and scientific discovery the different societies and consequently their faith’s, began to interact with each other and peoples of varying beliefs ended up living next to each other. This presented a situation of potential conflict of ideas and has been so throughout history and man faced a choice, war or tolerance. In the Judeo-Christian ethic (and most other faiths) tolerance of others and their belief system became part of that faith system. To further allow freedom to choose one’s faith the idea of government not mandating the individual beliefs, liberties, and freedoms of the people, secular governments evolved where religious beliefs are not mingled or part of the rules and laws of the state.

Not being ruled by a theocracy gave us more freedom of thought since religious teachings are left to the leaders of these faiths. This made following our faith voluntary. As our lives became more and more complicated, pursuit of material and personal fulfillment took up more and more time, and the concern for allowing freedom of thought took over parental authority, religious practices became less and less a part of our lives. So that after a few generations the decision to practice and even to choose a faith was left to children of parents that were too busy to practice any faith.

Without direction from our parents and the many distractions in modern times, our youth did not learn to dedicate them selves and their time to practicing any faith. This has worked for some but there are many others who without knowing what it was, feel they are missing something on their lives. Since the authority figure, their parents, have obviously rejected their own religion (by not practicing it) it must not be that fulfilling. The only religion that is vigorously perused by clergy, teachers, and parents is Islam and it offers spiritual fulfillment without, at first, emphasizing its dark side. These young converts may not even be aware of what they are searching for. As in the past some converts get into the faith while others accept only the “exciting” portions that Islam has to offer which is the violence that comes with Jihad.

What is needed in the West is for the re-acceptance and the assertion of parental authority and responsibility for fulfilling spiritual direction in their children. If this does not happen, the state will take over this responsibility by instilling a socialist order where the people look towards their government for all their needs. This will lead to a more and more totalitarian state where the individual is nothing and the sate is every thing. Soon any resistance to this will be futile and we all will be forced to conform.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Non-discriminative Thinking Will Lead to Dhimmitude

If anyone agrees that we are engaged in a “so-called war on international terrorism” then they need to open their eyes and pay attention to what is going on. This is a real war that has spanned hundreds of years and several continents. Terror has been a tool of Islam’s consistent war with all non-Muslims of the world since 650 A.D. One can verify this by reading “The Life and Religion of Mohammed” and later history books on Islam. By brutally ravaging, raping and pillaging neighbouring towns and villages, Islam has terrorized people into submitting a seventh century mindset of tyrannical rule. A mind set that treats women as property, discounts all facts that are not mentioned in the Koran, stifles individual thought and liberty, and is menacingly intolerant of any other faith or non faith to the point of demanding their elimination. This mindset demands the most draconian punishment for innocuous infractions of the Koran and Sharia Law. Surah 9:5 demands the murder of all non-Muslims where ever they may be found. Anyone guilty of leaving the Muslim faith must recant or face a horrible death. These and other edicts of Islam are in direct opposition of modern enlightened thought.

If the current liberal thought of non-discrimination prevails, as it appears to be in Canada, Great Britain, and other European nations, we will be faced with submission to Islam or elimination. When the Taliban and Al-Qaida took over Afghanistan, the country was plunged into the seventh century. All historical and religious non-Muslim artefacts were destroyed; modern ways such as radios, telephones, and communication with rest of the world were outlawed to the general populous, women were not allowed an education resulting in the death and suffering of countless number of women unable to get medical care since male doctors were not allowed to examine women and there were no women educated in medicine. This is what is in store for the world if we do not use fact, logic, and reason when looking at Islam’s assault on the Western World soundly and emphatically rejecting it.

Islam is trying to terrorize the world into submission to Islam as converts or accept a life of dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is willingly living as second class citizens, paying tribute to Islamic rulers, accept Muslim’s right to your property and other belongings, and having your word discounted if in dispute with a Muslim. In Saudi Arabia one can be arrested for having religious service (even just praying by your self) other than Islamic. Coptic Christians in Egypt are attacked and beaten while the police stand by and watch. Iran which used to have a secular government with Islam as the main religion has been step by step denying religious freedom and is in progress of implementing laws that will punish non-Muslim worshipers. The days of the Dhimmis in Iran are numbered. This is what Islam has in store for the rest of the world.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Terror and the Connection to Islam

Between August 15th and September 8th of 2008 there were 351 acts of terror world wide with 1,803 deaths and 3,546 injuries. These were all committed by Muslims yelling Allahu Akbar.

Surah 9:5 demands that Muslims kill the Infidels where ever they are found. Islam detests all other beliefs or non-beliefs and considers itself being attacked when others practice or preach what they believe. There are countless numbers of attacks on people wearing Crucifix or the Star of David. Women are attacked and raped because they do not dress the way Muslims want them to. Islam demands adherence to Sharia Law and ignores the laws of the lands that they live in.

All these acts of intolerance are based on the teachings of Islam. What form of “logic” is used to say that these acts of terror are not motivated and directed directly by Islam? Only a fool or liar can say that Islam is not at the root of these acts of terror.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Kill All the Old People

Back in 1976 there was a movie called “Logan’s Run”; a science fiction story about over population and how the world governments would deal with it. It got great reviews but I did not like it because of the solution that people came up with. The people, or most all of them, accepted that no one deserved to live for more that 30 years. Those of us who value life never imagined that the day would come when people would be advocating such mass murder.

Well there are people in high places that are advocating just that. They say that some of us have a Duty to Die. That’s right, certain members of our society should just kill them selves and if they don’t agree then it would be up to the rest of us to murder them.

Baroness Warnock, official advisor to the British government and considered one of the most influential experts on medical ethics, is a long time advocate of euthanasia and in her latest article says elderly people have a duty to die. She states that it is a waste of resources to take care of people with dementia and other disabling conditions. She even went further as a proponent of mandatory killing of the elderly. She is not the only one advocating the mass murder of the elderly. Former Governor of Colorado Richard Lamm suggested that old people have a duty to die.

Secular pragmatism on a path to obliterate all Judeo-Christian values and ethics and not enough people are countering this trend. When you go to your poling place to vote or fill out your vote by mail ballot, take this into consideration of who you want to run your government. Ask yourself will this person advocate snuffing out your life because your continued existence has become an inconvenience for some one?

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Russia’s Quest for Dominance Means Dire Consequences for the World

There are some very dark foreboding clouds of war looming in the horizon. Russia’s insistence on being a major player on the world scene and having influence over her former Soviet States and satellite countries is pushing it towards a major confrontation with the West in general and the United States in particular.

Russia talks a lot about having the right to dominate Georgia, the Ukraine, and other countries but when push comes to shove they will back down form a direct hot conflict with the U.S. They know that is a conflict they can not win and will suffer dramatically. But they are not above using others as surrogates to fight America. This is a very safe way for them to challenge us. If things go bad they can just let their surrogates take all the heat; after all Russians were just engaged in comers what the customer does with their purchases is not their concern.

So Russia is selling arms of all kinds to Venezuela, Syria, and Iran; three avowed enemies of America. I am not talking just about Kalashnikovs. This shopping cart is full of heavy tanks, missiles (of all types), the latest jets Russia has, and Venezuela for sure is trying to buy submarines. I am sure that in the case of a major war breaking out in the Middle East Iran is a panting customer for submarines to mess with the Strait of Hormuz.

The following scenario is really not far fetched. Syria and Hizbollah attack Israel. Israel retaliates and kicks serious but all the way to Syria. Iran goes to “defend” its alia and lobs some bodacious long range missals into Israel. Not all missals reach their target but tiny Israel is decimated. Their military already strained by war in the north and is in no position to fully retaliate against Iran. The U.S. comes to the aid of Israel which Iran anticipated so they block the Strait of Hormuz, fires missals at Saudi oil fields and civilian populations creating havoc. Iraq is not spared either; the oil fields are all blown up. The world has most of its source of oil stopped up. Turkey refuses to allow the use of its air fields and air space. Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan all denounce U.S. and Israel for aggression.

On America’s southern flank Chavez in Venezuela rants outrage and prepares its missals for attack. He may not have serious intentions to fire but knows that it will force the U.S. to prepare for another front distracting it for the Middle East. Politicians of both parties in Washington start to make political hey from the situation. Congress is turmoil.

Russia just sits back and watches things unfold and prepares to take major advantage of the situation. It overthrows the governments of its former Soviet States and satellites. The U.S. can’t do anything about it and Europe is frozen by indecision but is not speechless. Most of Europe condemns and blames the U.S.

The U.S. is faced with engaging in an all out war on several fronts, including Russia, or retreating to defend it self and salvage as much as possible. That decision will be up to the administration. Will it use the might of the American military and decimate Russia or retreat, allow Russia to become dominate in Europe and the Middle East, and give South America to Hugo Chavez? Will the U.S. be able to survive either scenario and still be the same America?

We are in a time of extreme danger. What action both political and military the U.S. takes will determine the state of the world for decades to come. This is not the time for appeasement or for foolish bravado.

It is time to put the CIA covert operation back into action. Although Hugo has a large circle of support, most of the Venezuelan people are not too happy with him and the morning period of his decent from power would last about thirty New York seconds. He needs to be over thrown and now. This would make the Argentine government think twice before they raise their Marxist colors too high.

The Iranian regime has many internal and external enemies. That situation needs to be exploited and Ahmadinejad along with his cohorts sent to the gallows. That’s right, permanent removal from this life and sent to the land of 72 virgins. If history has thought us anything is that exiling people like them just postpones catastrophic events. Who knows when another Jimmy Carter shows up and reverses all this hard work?

These two actions will take the teeth out of the smelly bear. Syria is of not much good to Russia since it won’t have Iran to back it up. As matter of fact it is more likely that Syria will make an about face and make peace with Israel. I don’t mean to infer that Russia will give up its aspirations but it will make things so difficult that it won’t be a problem for a long time. By then things will get screwed up in other parts of the world.

You can plan ahead only so much. The Soviet Union proved that. Before a five year plan comes to fruition things have changed so much that the original plan is as useful as spiting into the wind.
© 2008 by V.V. Cymbal

Democrats still blocking our energy independence

The Democrats are still not ready to do the job they were sent to do. Ever since the Democrats attained the majority in both houses, they have done every thing else but take care of the business of running this country. They have stalled urgent legislation, wasted time trying to impeach President Bush, and have been peddling gloom and doom.

They had a chance to help the economy, bring the price of gas to a semblance of reality, reduce the strangle hold that OPEC has on the oil market, and pull the rug out from Russia bullying Europe with the threat of cutting off gas supplies, and make us energy independent. So did they grab at this chance? No they just insulted us by going through the motions of pretending to do the job they were sent to Washington to do. They came up with a drill, drill now, drill REALLY, REALLY deep, and far, far away. They have “removed” restrictions from drilling 100 miles off American coasts. THE OIL IS JUST A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, like just out of sight of Barbara Streisand’s ocean view.

Their bill, passed in the house, hasn’t got a snow ball’s chance in hell of passing the senate.
The bill removes congress’ restrictions and the states can still say no to drilling off their shores. And they will because there is not incentive for them. They will not be allowed to share in the revenue. That is the real death knell right there.

Off the coast of California there is oil and natural gas seeping into the ocean and the Democrats won’t let the oil companies drill for it. We have to get active and inundate the legislators with phone calls, letters, faxes, and emails. Folks, this is no minor issue. We are talking about $10.00/gallon gas prices and continued support of our enemies. Get active and help protect this country. DO IT NOW!

Monday, September 15, 2008

Understanding Islam: A Primer for the Masses

Part One – How it all started

The Setting for the Prophet of Arbistan
The birthplace of Mohammed, the founder of the religion that is again threatening the world with catastrophic implications, is now called Arabia, the modern name for Arabistan. This large tract of land between the Euphrates, the Persian Gulf, the Sindian, the Indian and Red Sea, and part of the Mediterranean Sea is where this degrading, abusive, and militant belief first started to fester.

The modern Arabians are sprung from two stocks, the Kahatan or Jokatan, the son of Eber mentioned in Genesis (x. 26) and the other descended from Adnan, descended from Ismael the son of Abraham by Hagar an Egyptian slave. The Joktan descendants are called Al Arab al Ariba that is pure Arabs, while the descendents of Adnan are called Al Arab al Mosterba. The later can not claim to be pure Arabs because their origin and language was Hebrew. One can divide the classes into those that wander and are called Bedouins or dwellers in tents in the desert; and those that settled and live in cities.

The Arabs living between the populations of Asia and Africa were influenced and had aspects of their religion in common with adjacent peoples. The Arabs originally believed in the existence of one God, creator of the all whom they called Allaha Taala, the highest God. However they soon lost their early monotheism and fell to idolatry, fetishism, animal, and star worship. They began to worship the hosts of heaven, known as Sabeanism. They began to ascribe divine powers to the stars as they observed their risings and settings and changes in the weather.

The ancient Arabs worshiped seven temples dedicated to the seven planets. This star worship became corrupted and other deities, superstitions, and idolatrous practices crept in. Ancient Arabia was a refuge for all sorts of religious fugitives. Each group added its own flavor to the stock of religious beliefs. Arabs took for their own abodes and haunts of gods; marked as sacred by pillars smeared with sacrificial blood where bloodshed, cutting of trees, hunting game was forbidden. This was the origin of Haramain (sacred territory) around Mecca and Medina.

The Persians by their proximity to Arabs introduced the Magian religion to some. The Jews fleeing from Roman destruction in great numbers into Arabia also introduced the Jewish religion to many Arab tribes. Before the birth of Mohamed, Christianity had also permutated among Arabia. So it wasn’t long before Arabia was peopled by those who espoused ascetic anchorites, whose perfect retirement from the world, dedicating their lives to austerities and pious practices and whose steadfast preparation for the life to come had impressed the Arabs. So many religions and practices frequently conflicted with one another, produced the necessity of a re-conciliatory religion that could be adapted to the nature of people. Hanifs was the outcome of this quest. It was adopted by a small number of Arabs who worshipped only Allah, rejecting polytheism and searched for freedom from sin and resignation to God’s will. Hanifism was a step to Islam. That was the state of religion in Arabia before Mohammed who called this “the time of ignorance”. This is how the ground was set for the prophet of Islam.

The other aspect of Arab society that prepared the way for Mohamedism was the lack of any one national loyalty. Divided among them selves, the different tribes of Arabia were independent of each other and the influx of refugees from Greek and Roman tyranny had increased the strength of some these tribes. Arabia at the time of Mohamed was the center of many political schemes and plots. It would have been impossible to establish and propagate this new religion in a united Arabia with social and civil powers. Things were ripe for a Mohamed’s extraordinary success.

Mohamed – the Early Life
Mohamed was born in 570AD to Abdullah the great-great-grandson of Abdul Muttalib whose father, Kussai, was the Koreish (naturalized Arabs) tribe. While out on a trading expedition, Abdullah died at Medina, shortly before the birth of the prophet of Islam. Mohamed’s grandfather gave the child the name Mohamed, the Praised One. The grief form the death of her husband caused his mother’s milk to dry up and besides it was the custom at the time for Koreishite mothers to give their infants to be nursed by Bedouins. They dwelt in Arabia’s desert and this way the infant’s health will be secured by the desert air. Halima, the Bedouin nurse took charge of Mohamed for five years.

In his fifth year Mohamed started having (later diagnosed as) epileptic fits. Since such attacks were attributed to evil spirits it alarmed Halima greatly. She resolved to get rid of this child and he was returned to Amina his mother. On a visit to Medina his mother died. The slave Baraka brought Mohamed to his grandfather Abdul Muttalib was now obliged to care for Mohamed until his own death. He made arrangements to have his eldest son Abu Talib care for Mohamed which he did. Abu trained Mohamed in his trade as a merchant. At the age of twelve Abu took Mohamed on a trading expedition with a caravan into Syria. All along Mohamed was catered to with great affection. Mohamed learned what it was like to be lordly and to exercise power and never to forget it. For the rest of his youth Mohamed’s life was without incident. When he was not on trading expeditions, Mohamed would spend his time tending sheep and goats like others of his age. These were fond memories of Mohamed. He would later lament “no prophet has been raised up, who has not first done the work of a shepherd”.

At the age of twenty, he was involved in the “sacrilegious war” between the Koreish and the Hawagin tribes. This war occurred within the sacred months and in the sacred territory. He was quoted “In this war I discharge arrows at the enemy and I do not regret it”.

Khadija, a rich widow of Mecca and also a descended of Kussai accepted Mohammed, on the recommendation of his uncle Abu Talib, and put him in charge of one of her trading caravans to Bostra, sixty miles east of Jordan on the road to Damascus. He led the caravan north. Judiciously he bartered with merchants of Bostra, Alleppo, and Damascus, mostly Syrians. He managed to double Khadija’s expected profits. This pleased her very much. His bartering success, attractive personal qualities, and his favorable looks caused Khadija to marry Mohammed, even though at the time she was forty years old and twice married before. This marriage raised Mohammed to equal status with the richest in Mecca. Being of strong mind and mature experience, she kept Mohammed in check even to the point of not taking any other wife for as long as she lived. In his old age Mohammed partook in having many wives even taking them, some times by force, from their husbands at the time. Khadija bore him six children, two sons who died young and four daughters; Zeinale, Rockeya, Kolthum, and Fatima. Fatima turned out to be the most famous.

Prior to his life as a profit of Allah, Mohammed lived in a time filled with blood feuds common among whole tribes and revenge being a religious duty. Female infanticide was rampant in Arabia. At first it was due to poverty and famine. Later it became a social custom to limit population growth. Because wars and feuds decimated the male population there were too many females. Women in general were respected and burying them alive with a veil was unknown before this custom was later introduced by Mohammed. Polygamy and polyandry were both practiced with right of divorce for both men and women. Temporary marriages were quickly made and just as quickly dissolved. Idolatry, divination, bloody sacrifices, and sensualism were prevalent. No one knows if Mohammed was tempted by these happenings but he surely must have been curious. Most likely it was her influence over Mohammed that strengthened his attachment to monotheism. Mohammed trusted her implicitly and in return she was a true believer. When just about all called him a fake, she stood by him and freely stated he was the Apostle if Allah.

The Kaaba and Mohammed
Circumstance seemed to be good to Mohammed. The Kaaba (a small stone building in the court of the Great Mosque at Mecca that contains a sacred black stone and is the goal of Islamic pilgrimage and the point toward which Muslims turn in when praying) was endangered by a flood. The locals decided to rebuild the walls and add a roof. A disagreement arose as to who would have the honor to place the stone in the new walls. Before they came to blows, they decided that it should be decided by the first person to enter the sacred place via the gate of Beni-Sheyba. To be sure Mohammed was the first to reach the sacred spot and was chosen to make the decision. Mohammed had a knack for tact, diplomacy, and ingratiating himself and forming warm friendships. He took off his mantel and placed the sacred stone on it. He then directed that one from each of the four groups arguing about who should have the honor, to come forth and each raise a corner of the mantel. He then guided the stone to its new place. This decision heightened his popularity and influence among the tribesmen.
This occurrence served to confirm his belief in the divineness of his mission and strengthened his faith and adherents in the after days. It was at this time he decided to adopt his cousin Ali the son of his uncle Abu Talib. He admitted to also adopting Zeid, a slave presented to him by Khadija. These two acts he did to make up for the lose of his own two sons, it is believed.

Friday, September 12, 2008

This is what Muslims who count feel and their goals.

When ever you are challenged about the goals of Islam and the desires of all Muslims, think of this article. What is happening in Great Britain is beginning to happened here.

Lebanese Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri: Britain's Problem - 'Its Law Is Not the Law Sent Down by Allah'; Terrorism by Mujahideen is 'Blessed'; 'Within 20 Years, British Society Will Have a Muslim Majority'.

"When they saw that Islam was spreading in British universities at an unprecedented rate, and that the non-Muslims - the Hindus, the Christians and the Jews - were accepting Islam at an average rate of 21 people a day, it began to endanger their society. Within 20 years, British society will have a Muslim majority. Of course, this cannot be allowed by this secular regime, which wants to strip society of any religious values connected to Allah.

"I belong to Islam. I did not belong to Britain when I lived there. I was a Muslim living in Britain, now I am a Muslim living in Lebanon, and tomorrow I will be a Muslim living in Iraq. God only knows, I may be a Muslim in prison."

They took away my right to become a citizen. They didn't give me a passport because I refused to pledge allegiance to the queen. My wife and children got passports because they were born there. I refused to swear that I would obey the queen or the laws. I obey only Allah and His Messenger."

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Somalis win prayer case at Gold n Plump

Somali taxi drivers took one on the chin recently, but their friends and family at Gold’n Plump have successfully forced sharia law on their employer. Somali’s have made it clear they have no intention of integrating into American society - only forcing sharia law on Americans.

It is bad enough to allow Muslims to be governed by Sharia Law in the United States but to force it on non-Muslims is an outrage of Tsunami proportions. Now I have no problem with people worshiping their religion as long as that is all it is, which clearly is not as Islam demands the submission of all including standing laws. But this is a case of trumping our local, state, and constitutional law. If I won’t be served pork in a restaurant, market, or cafeteria, it will irritate me and most likely I won’t be customer of that place too often after that incident. If the owner of that establishment decides not to serve pork on his own, hey that’s ok by me. But if it is forced upon him, we got a problem and it is beyond me how this can happen. The only explanation I can see is, the attorney is greedy and the government officials are afraid at best and down right anti-American at worst.

By allowing one part of Sharia Law we are opening the flood door to the rest of that barbaric, seventh century mentality. Soon people wearing a Crucifix or the Star of David will be cursed, ridiculed, beaten up, and even killed; women will be raped because they do not dress the way Islam demands or killed because they won’t want to be given away to strangers; this is happening right now (for quite some time) in Europe.
It is too bad that we Americans are so comfortable with our own lot that we can not see the danger to us if events do not touch us directly. I’m afraid that it will take several more occurrences of a 9/11 attack before we wake up and realize that we and the future of America are in dire danger. The longer we allow this attack on us to continue without standing up for our Constitution and Judeo-Christian values the harder it will be to push the enemy back.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

When they can not argue facts

The left wing Liberals conceded the fact that Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. They have acknowledged that Sarah fought corruption. They agree that she puts country ahead of party politics.

They have lost all arguments against Sarah Palin so they have resorted to character assassination and name calling. Her husband got a D.U.I. Yes but that was over two decades ago and the Democrat presidential candidate admitted to doing ‘blow’. Gee that might not work too well. Well then, maybe her baby is not really hers, it could be her daughter’s; liar, liar pants on fire. What about her belonging to a radical political party that wanted Alaska to succeed from the union? Uh, that never happened. Her 17 year old daughter got pregnant. Happens in the best of families; she will be married and keep the child. What, she won’t kill the child? How dare she allow her daughter to be punished by bearing a child? Nah, that’s not a good argument. How dare she try to be vice president with having five children and one with possible disabilities? She is a strong woman who can handle life’s responsibilities. Well then, she wares glasses; four eyes.

It seems that life is just not fair when you are a stuck on stupid Liberal.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

How we misunderstand terrorism

The only way to defeat terrorism is to release preconceived notions of its causes.
By Adam Garfinkle for FPRI (02/09/08)

Auguste Comte once wrote that "intellectual confusion is at the bottom of every historical crisis." Insofar as the United States finds itself in a foreign policy crisis, intellectual confusion is indeed the cause, and in this case it is three-part.

First, two post-Cold War US administrations have misconstrued the implications of a unipolar world. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations thought American influence would grow as a result of the US victory in the Cold War, but the opposite has been the case.

Second, there is a widespread American misunderstanding of both the origin and scope of Islamist apocalyptic terrorism. That threat is enabled to some degree by poverty and social injustice, by grievances over Western policies, and by the authoritarian political cultures of the Muslim world. But it is not caused by any of these. Its underlying cause is the inability of most Muslim - and especially Arab - societies to effectively adapt to the growing pressures of modernization.

Third, there is the dominant cadence of our own political culture: Enlightenment universalism. Our belief in the universal applicability of what is actually a parochial point of view obscures awareness of the true source of Islamic terrorism.

The error of assuming greater US influence when there is actually less has compounded the misunderstanding of terrorism, producing counterproductive policies that have reduced US influence still further. Only by escaping our confusion can we end the crisis.

Neither poverty nor tyranny
When confronted with a novel challenge, the human mind reasons by analogy. We then become prone to reading the world in ways that reaffirm the choice we have made. Since 9/11 most Americans (and many others) have tended to reason by analogy about Islamist terrorism in two basic tropes, both idealist in nature - one quintessentially liberal and one quintessentially conservative.

The liberal idealist approach is to alleviate the poverty and social injustice thought to be the "root cause" of terrorist violence and address the supposedly legitimate grievances of those who hate us in the Middle East. Those who took the poverty approach to deal with terrorism were simply recapitulating the Cold War catechism: Communism festers when impoverished people lack hope in the future.

But the idea that stimulating rapid economic growth in Middle Eastern countries would reduce the generation of terrorism is ahistorical. Rapid economic growth invariably brings disruptive social change in its wake. It does not "settle down" societies; at base, change - even progress - that comes too rapidly to be assimilated is the problem.

As to grievances, there is a general tendency to exaggerate the role of Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts in the broader Middle Eastern context. The idea that an Israeli-Palestinian peace arrangement, could one be produced, would reduce the terrorist threat to the United States and the West is delusional. Indeed, Western brokerage of a settlement that leaves a Jewish State of Israel in any borders whatsoever would increase, not reduce, terrorism. In fact, the depredations of Arab autocracies are better accelerators of the frustrations that can congeal into terrorist violence than anything that goes on in Israel/Palestine. Moreover, just as rapid economic growth would produce more angst and, hence, more terror recruits, making Israel the scapegoat to appease radical Muslim demands would only help radicals in their internal social battle against more moderate and traditional forces. Those who think that alleviating poverty in the Middle East and "addressing the grievances" of our enemies are the best policies to deal with Islamist terror would only substitute different counterproductive policies for current ones.

That said, the counterproductive potential of current policies is undeniable. The "democracy deficit" trope of conservative idealism analogizes the oppression of Soviet and East European societies to that of societies abused by authoritarian governments in the Muslim and especially the Arab worlds. President Bush's frequent assertion that freedom is a gift of God universally applicable to all people is the clearest example of this highly moralized view of international politics. Combined with a simplified version of democratic peace theory, this view encompasses a secular messianist vision of permanent world peace. Its core theory is that terrorists arise because other avenues of political participation are closed off. These violent malcontents blame the West, the United States in particular, for the stultified environments in which they suffer.

Liberal templates for understanding Islamist terrorism have fallen behind the "democracy deficit" analogue in recent years. Not only did the poverty approach fly in the face of obvious facts about 9/11 and other terrorists, but conservative idealists have controlled the bully pulpit and employed talented White House speechwriters to make use of it. However, the democracy deficit template remains a misleading analogue for understanding Islamist terrorism.

Social injustice and acute income stratification have been features of authoritarian Arab and Muslim societies for the entire modern independence era, and even before that. Yet the sort of terrorism we experienced on 9/11 is new; al-Qaeda was founded only in 1988. How can conditions that have existed for decades and even centuries explain this recent phenomenon?

The Bush administration's policies have produced predictably counterproductive outcomes in Gaza, for example, and in Iraq, where a premature election strengthened a proclivity for sectarian voting. This has reinforced the downward spiral where decision-makers continue to see the world through the prism of their chosen analogue.

The real problem.
The root causes of apocalyptical terrorism have to do with a condition of blocked or distorted modernization. A monumental, culture-cracking collision between the Muslim world and "Westernization" has been ongoing for a century and more, gaining momentum in the last two post-Cold War decades with the accelerating Western cultural penetration of the Muslim world. Mostly traditional societies are being increasingly stressed by external pressures even as changes well up within from greater urbanization, literacy and social mobility. To various degrees, these societies are being pluralized, and this is placing enormous strains on established ways of thinking and behaving.

Pluralization—a process in which people become aware that there are multiple ways to interpret and act in society—tends to divide traditional societies into three basic groups: a minority that wants "in" to the modern world; nativists who fear for the identity of their society and use religious symbols to mobilize people against the alien intrusion; and those seeking a living tradition to negotiate entry into modernity on culturally acceptable non-Western terms. Western historians of the many precedential movements sometimes refer to them as chiliastic, or end-of-the-world, millenarian religious risings. Such movements are generally quietist and inward-turned. Sometimes, however, they turn their energies outward into mad and often suicidal violence against real or perceived enemies. At such times, believers usually think that violence is part of a divine plan to hasten the end of the world, bring the messiah, re-establish the Caliphate, or whatever the theology requires. Such movements generally arise at times of disruptive change, anything that renders normal frameworks of social understanding obsolete.

One reason many Middle Eastern societies have problems dealing with the stresses induced by rapid change: the endogamous family structure. Endogamy generally means marrying close to one's family, but in the Middle East, it defines a tribe. It refers to the strong preference for marriage within extended family defined by strongly patriarchal lineages, and it even provides a survival rationale for men having multiple wives. These "segmentary lineages" shift about with cousin marriage to give rise to a kind of internal balance of power among subunits.

In most Arab societies, everyone knows where they fit into the overall structure. Loyalty is to extended family, individual agency is weak, and the entire structure tends to resist outside influence. Religion is organic to birth and reinforces the authority of the patriarchal system. However, it is the social structure, which predated Islam, that comes first. Assaults to tribe and family, real or imagined, are therefore assaults against religion, and vice versa.

Endogamous social organization helps explain why these societies tend to split into factions when they come under pressure. The Taliban, which most Westerners consider motivated by religion, are as much driven by concern over their tribal structures' viability. Westerners divide politics from religion and religion from social structure by second nature, but these divisions have no parallel in the Middle East.

Why do they hate us?' They don't. Sometimes we disgust them because of what they consider our materialist, impatient and promiscuous ways. But mainly they fear us. They are afraid that our cultural-economic intrusion into their social space will destroy their corporate identity and undo the authority structures that for thousands of years have protected them against the vicissitudes of history. They interpret the threat through the prism of religion and use religious pride to mobilize resistance. But at base this has nothing to do with theology as Westerners understand the term.

In times of stress, joining chiliastic movements is not the only mode of coping. Many react instead by becoming more conventionally religious. This is why rapid upward mobility is frequently associated in the Muslim world with greater piety, not less. This is the opposite of what postwar Western modernization theory expected, an error caused by a spasm of unreflective universalism that led its practitioners to superimpose Western templates on non-Western societies.

Alas, we Americans don't often bother distinguishing between pious traditionalists and politicized nativists, and we generally don't realize how scary we are to traditional peoples. Now, when large enough chunks of any society generate outward-turned chiliastic movements, all hell is liable to break lose. But the real targets are always close to home, with the exception of those, e.g. Mohammad Atta, living in Europe, uncomfortably suspended between the old and the new. We in the West are primarily props in their arguments.

The motivation for 9/11 came from nativists attacking the "far enemy" to undermine those of their countrymen who opposed both their views and approaches to cleansing their societies. The presence of US forces on Saudi soil provided a handy pretext, the end of the Cold War made the United States the only obvious target of such an attack, and modern transportation and communication technologies provided the means. The hope, clearly expressed by Al Qaeda principals, was that US forces would be lured subsequently into Afghanistan and smashed as were Soviet forces before them.

If there is any good news in this account of our terrorism problem, it is that episodes of chiliastic violence invariably burn themselves out. They require lots of un- or under-employed young men to constitute the armies of protest, but young men grow up fast. Above all, suicidal violence tends to create self-limiting organizations. So even if salafi groups were better organized than most are, the threat they pose is limited by the time horizon. To call this conflict a "long war" is therefore exactly wrong. It will only become a "long war" if we act in such a way as to make it one.

The bad news is that a policy of exporting democracy will not curb chiliastic violence. Indeed, by threatening and weakening the very Arab and Muslim state elites which we need to contain these movements, we make the prospects of that violence worse. By implying that we are politically and morally superior to them, again, we help nativists in their internal struggles with those who are our natural allies. It is, therefore, good that the Bush administration's "forward strategy for freedom" in the Middle East has been quieted, because further efforts to promote it would have been disastrous.

What we must do.
If we substitute a blocked-modernization understanding of the problem for a democracy-deficit understanding, what would change in US foreign policy?

First, we would rethink efforts to promote economic growth and political liberalization in the Muslim world. It is fine to want to alleviate poverty and spread liberal institutions and democratic government to others. But it is hard for outsiders to do liberal good works in places where the institutional and attitudinal precursors - a pervasive sense of individual agency and the idea of equality before the law; belief in an intrinsic source of moral-political authority; and the existence of a concept of a loyal opposition - are largely absent.

More than that, introducing democratic forms prematurely can be counterproductive to the eventual success of liberal institutions. For example, elections, interjected into heterogeneous societies not used to individual political agency, can drive societies back toward their tribal roots. The January 2008 election in Kenya seems a case in point.

Therefore, we should cease the rhetorical policy of promoting democracy in the Muslim world. Traditional Muslims do not accept distinctions between theology and ideology. In this they are consonant with the flow of history, in which political theology has always been a fact of life. More than that, "democracy" carries baggage in the Muslim world, much of it negative. To some, democracy vaguely means government that is not arbitrary and corrupt. To many pious Muslims, however, it is vaguely associated with apostasy. In his anti-election campaign in Iraq in 2005, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi suggested that voting was tantamount to participation in a Christian religious ritual.

Moreover, when US officials claim that our way of doing politics is sanctioned by God, they are saying in effect that traditional Muslim concepts of government are not sanctioned by God. This turns the conflict into a more explicitly religious dispute that helps radical nativists for whom the religious pride of ordinary people is a natural ally.

US policy, therefore, requires a low-profile, long-term emphasis on assisting gradual, sustainable economic reform, and on promoting locally acceptable forms of the rule of law. This is in our interest not just because alleviating poverty and promoting justice are good in and of themselves, or because such programs will stamp out terrorism in the short run (they won't), but because we need stronger states in the region to contain religious energies and movements.

For the time being, then, first, we should prefer "soft" authoritarian rule to weak and warlike young democracies. We should save our high-profile rhetoric and any muscular action for states actively supporting or abetting terrorist violence.

Second, with we should stigmatize terrorism, using indigenous sources of authority to do so, but without linking that effort to democratization. We should patiently pursue a state-strengthening liberalization agenda even as we separately pursue a terrorism-stigmatization campaign.

Third is public diplomacy. We have botched this in the Middle East over the past six years. We have been worried about our image, but the problem is the failure of most Muslim societies to audibly condemn terrorism—a practice that is abhorrent to any reasonable reading of Islam. We should have been quietly networking traditional Muslim intellectuals and clerics to help them articulate that terrorism is morally wrong. We have done some of this, mainly at the Defense Department, but the State Department has wasted years perseverating on the wrong question. In an absentminded fit of post-Cold War economizing, Congress destroyed the institution arguably best suited for the purpose - the United States Information Agency - and tried unsuccessfully to stuff its remains into the Department of State. One solution would be to re-establish USIA, but a new public-private partnership of some kind is probably the better way to go.

Fourth, we should try not to lose, or appear to lose, the war in Iraq. Being seen to lose in Iraq is the single most effective way to help al-Qaida recruit an ample next generation of terrorists. Not losing is the best way to deflate its conviction that God is on its side. Nor should we lose the struggle in Afghanistan, which may turn out to be harder than Iraq. And we should not underestimate the huge symbolic value of finding and killing bin-Laden and al-Zawahiri. But this does not mean we should stay in Iraq in full military strength until we have helped midwife a liberal democracy. Rather, we should seek an Iraq that holds together in a federal state, and that is neither so strong as to threaten its neighbors nor so weak as to entice violence from them.

It is safe and wise to set minimalist goals for US Iraq policy for two reasons. First, Iraqi society will probably not collapse into acute sectarian violence if the US reduces its military profile there; and the regional consequences of negative events in Iraq would not in any event be as significant as many fear. National leaderships in that part of the world are generally cautious and conservative, aware of their own weakness and the neighborhood's dangers. More important, if we keep assuming that small shifts in what we do will have outsized regional consequences, we will become in perpetuity a nation of caring and hence incompetent imperialists. An "indispensable nation" attitude of this sort for the Middle East is a formula for protracted disaster.

Fifth, if we understand that rapid social change occasionally produces violent chiliastic movements, we should expect to see more such movements over the next several decades. We should also expect that if the US remains the number-one power, we will remain the prime target for such groups. This leads to an important observation: When we think of a nexus between WMD and terrorism we typically think of nuclear weapons. But nuclear weapons are hard to make, hide, transfer and use compared to bioweapons. By all means we should continue efforts to contain the nuclear weapons proliferation threat. But if the future WMD of choice will likely be bio-weapons, we need to devise ways to better control the uses of bioscience. We need an international regime to both monitor and set standards for bioscience research, and we probably should criminalize certain behaviors.

Lastly, we must take the full measure of what the crisis of modernity in the Arab/Muslim world means for the Western approach to the region. As a rule, we should make ourselves scarce, and when we cannot, try to join with our European, Asian and Middle Eastern allies.

Of course, whether the US government keeps its profile high or low, it cannot tell NGOs what to do or tell US-based corporations where to buy, sell and invest. The products of American entertainment culture, especially action films, do a lot of damage. They convey images of American society wildly at variance with reality. We need to reconsider what, if anything, we can do about this as a matter of public policy.

We need also to adjust homeland security policy. Terrorism sets a trap that requires the object of its attention to conspire in its own undoing. We have fallen into that trap. What should we do now to reverse the errors we have made?

First, the US government must stop injecting fear into the American population. It should eliminate Orwellian security announcements in our subway systems and avoid messages telling us vaguely to "report suspicious activities." Such policies tell all potential terrorists that it doesn't take much to rattle us. They constitute not deterrents but incentives to strike us.

Second, we need to stop treating so many visitors to our country as potential terrorists. We are alienating our best potential friends abroad with bureaucratized paranoia. We must also stop violating international legal norms regarding prisoners and detainees. It is true that the Geneva Conventions no longer speak adequately to the times, but we should err on the side of compliance wherever a question of interpretation arises.

Third, we should examine whether the FBI can ever mount a serious effort at domestic counterterrorism. We may need a new organization, comparable to Britain's MI5, for this purpose.

Fourth, we must get a handle on immigration. The US Customs and Immigration Service cannot possibly be expected to find the "signal" of terrorism crossing our borders when the "noise" of 12-14 million illegal immigrants eats up its resources. Congress needs to fix the problem, but it won't unless the next White House forces the issue.

Fifth, we need to re-conceive the structures of both the Directorate for National Intelligence and the Homeland Security Department. Both of these "reforms" are over-centralized, over-layered bureaucratic monstrosities that probably make us less safe. We need, instead, to become a more resilient nation, both to deal with contemporary Salafi terrorism and with the more daunting prospects of post-Salafi bioterror in the future.

Sixth, as we need to say less from our bully pulpits about the danger of terrorism, we need quietly to do more about it. We need to reduce the number of lawyers in the Defense Department who keep telling US Special Forces units what they cannot do, for example, with Predator missiles.

Seventh and finally, if the problem of apocalyptical terrorism is a "war of ideas," then as with any war someone needs to be in charge of it. The US government needs unity of command, but today no one is in charge. No one has even undertaken the elementary exercise of working up a functional budget to show what resources we are spending across half a dozen Executive departments and agencies. The preparation of such a functional budget would make a worthy exercise for a transition team between an election and an inauguration.