Dr. Patrick Moore was one of the founding members of Greenpeace. At one time, he was also the president of that organization. In this video, he explains why AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) alarmism is a scientific fraud and it is not happening to any significant degree. Notice, around 11 minutes, the graph that clearly shows that for the last billion years, it has been much warmer than it is today. The average global temperature, today, is about 14.5 degrees Centigrade. For most of the last billion years (or even 600 million years as shown in the graph at 12 minutes), the average global temperature has been about 22 degrees Centigrade. That is, for most of the last billion years, the average global temperature has been 7.5 degrees Centigrade warmer than it is today. Thus, we are currently coming out of another ice age, and we should expect much warmer temperatures in the future. But, those warmer temperatures are due to natural variability, not man-made CO2 emissions.
These graphs clearly show that it has been much warmer in the past, and there is no reason to think that any significant portion of the warming that is occurring now is due to CO2. Furthermore, as the graph of the last 600 million years shows, CO2 has been much, much higher in the past compared to where it is today, and there is absolutely no correlation between temperature and CO2. Other interesting graphs show how total global sea ice is actually higher, today, than it was when we started measuring it in 1979. Also, sea level rise essentially ended 7000 years ago, as shown in a graph at about 16:45 into the presentation.
This whole Germanwings crash is extremely strange. From the beginning, it looked like a terrorist attach to me. The weather was excellent and there was no report of a problem with the aircraft. Why would a commercial airliner crash in such a case?
If there was something wrong with the airplane, there were several airports that could have easily been reached from their cruising altitude. Also, if there was something wrong with the aircraft, why would the crew have not called for help. They did not.
Next, why does the airline talk about the pilot, who had 6000 hours, but no information is given about the co-pilot? In all other crashes that I am familiar with, we always hear about both the pilot and co-pilot. The fact that we have a mysterious accident and the airline is absolutely not willing to talk about the co-pilot sounds suspicious.
Now, we hear that a pilot (or co-pilot) was apparently locked out of the cockpit. How could this happen? If a pilot leaves the cockpit, another crew member, usually a flight attendant, must be in the cockpit in case the pilot in command has a heart attack, stoke, or is otherwise incapacitated. The fact that we are now hearing that a pilot was locked out of the cockpit, and no other crew member was in the cockpit, says that either the pilots broke all of the rules or that someone wanted to take the plane down.
Add to this the fact that we have still not heard anything about the co-pilot, I am going to predict that either the pilot in the cockpit had mental, financial, or family issues that may have caused him or her to set up a suicide situation, or, perhaps, he was a Muslim and this was his jihad. At this point, I am guessing it was the latter. I hope I am wrong.
We keep hearing the constant beat of war drums in the Middle East. We keep hearing that we need to put “American boots on the ground” to crush the Islamic State. In reality, the last thing we need is another ill-advised war that we cannot possibly win in a part of the world that already hates us for bringing war and destruction to their countries for decades. Also, since our government is unwilling to name the enemy, political Islam, we cannot possibly win the war. What are we fighting? Who is the bad guy? How many tens of millions are we willing to kill to declare victory? What will victory look like? I maintain that the only real victory that would be acceptable to the civilized world would be the end of political Islam, and I don’t see that happening in the 21st century, unfortunately. And, we’re certainly not going to bring about that state of affairs with war. Only education can achieve that goal.
The Islamic State, just like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Jamaat al-Fuqra, Jamaat-ul_Mujahideen Bangladesh, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Abu Sayyaf Group, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyah, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Ansar al-Sharia, al Nusra Front, Huthi militia, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Islamic Jihad Union, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Quds, Fatah, the Mulsim Brotherhood, and other terrorist organizations are really just Muslims that actually believe the crap that is in the Koran and hadith and live their lives accordingly. As Sam Harris so succinctly put it on the Bill Maher show, “Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas.” Graeme Wood explained the situation extremely well in his article “What ISIS Really Wants” in the March, 2015, Issue of The Atlantic.
Contrary to what we keep hearing on the lame stream media, Obama, and government talking puppets like Jen Psaki, the Islamic State is very Islamic. (As documented very well in Graeme Wood’s excellent article cited above.) They follow the teachings of Islam to the letter, with the exception of burning prisoners alive, which is not Islamic. (Burning people alive has, traditionally, been a Christian activity.) We hear how they behead people; that is what the Koran and hadith tell them to do. That is what Mohammad did. Koran 47:4:
So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds. (Sahih International translation)
They tell us that women in groups they conquer are sold into slavery and also become “sex slaves”. That is exactly what the Koran and hadith spell out. Koran 4:24
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. (Sahih International translation.)
When the Koran says “….your right hands possess”, it is specifically referring to slaves taken in battle.
Other verses in the Koran and hadith that refer to sex slaves, and slaves in general, are shown, in part, below.
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 8:3371)
Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani: A bedouin came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s apostle! I ask you by Allah to judge My case according to Allah’s Laws.” His opponent, who was more learned than he, said, “Yes, judge between us according to Allah’s Laws, and allow me to speak.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Speak.” He (i .e. the bedouin or the other man) said, “My son was working as a laborer for this (man) and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that it was obligatory that my son should be stoned to death, so in lieu of that I ransomed my son by paying one hundred sheep and a slave girl. Then I asked the religious scholars about it, and they informed me that my son must be lashed one hundred lashes, and be exiled for one year, and the wife of this (man) must be stoned to death.” Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, I will judge between you according to Allah’s Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to be returned to you, your son is to receive a hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. You, Unais, go to the wife of this (man) and if she confesses her guilt, stone her to death.” Unais went to that woman next morning and she confessed. Allah’s Apostle ordered that she be stoned to death. (Sahih Bukhari 3:50:885)
“Al-Sabi is a woman from among ahl al-harb [the people of war] who has been captured by Muslims.
(Editorial note: the people of war means anyone that is not under the control of Islam.)
“Question 2: What makes al-sabi permissible?
“What makes al-sabi permissible [i.e., what makes it permissible to take such a woman captive] is [her] unbelief. Unbelieving [women] who were captured and brought into the abode of Islam are permissible to us, after the imam distributes them [among us].”
“Question 3: Can all unbelieving women be taken captive?
“There is no dispute among the scholars that it is permissible to capture unbelieving women [who are characterized by] original unbelief [kufr asli], such as the kitabiyat [women from among the People of the Book, i.e. Jews and Christians] and polytheists. However, [the scholars] are disputed over [the issue of] capturing apostate women. The consensus leans towards forbidding it, though some people of knowledge think it permissible. We [ISIS] lean towards accepting the consensus…”
“Question 4: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive?
“It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the female captive. Allah the almighty said: ‘[Successful are the believers] who guard their chastity, except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are free from blame [Koran 23:5-6]’…”
“Question 5: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive immediately after taking possession [of her]?
“If she is a virgin, he [her master] can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of her. However, is she isn’t, her uterus must be purified [first]…”
“Question 13: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty?
“It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse.”
(As regards Question 13, Mohammad married his favorite wife, Aisha, when she was 6. He consummated the marriage when she was 9. Ayatollah Khomeini, the person responsible for the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the leader of Iran until his death in 1989, married a 10 year old girl when he was 28. He later said that having a prepubescent wife was “a divine blessing.” In “modern” Afghanistan, most girls are married before the age of 15.)
So, the Islamic State, and other groups that we call terrorists, are actually just doing what they should be doing as “good Muslims”. Of course, just like I don’t believe that most Christians take their religion seriously, and thus don’t really believe the nonsense that is in the Bible about the flood, virgin birth, people being hundreds of years old, and the earth being less than 7000 years old, there are undoubtedly hundreds of millions of Muslims that don’t take Islam seriously. But, and here is the problem, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims that do take their religion seriously. Many polls have been taken that show that many Muslims prefer Sharia law to modern, secular law, and support such things stoning adulterers to death, cutting off the hands of thieves, and beheading or hanging homosexuals. While the media goes into a frenzy every time the Islamic State beheads one of their enemies, you don’t hear much about the fact that our “friend”, Saudi Arabia, beheaded over 59 people in 2014. Beheadings in Saudi Arabia are often for such crimes as sorcery, drug smuggling, adultery, and apostasy.
We hear that Iraqi solders threw down their weapons and ran when the Islamic State attacked Mosul. But, did they run for their lives, or did they run from a fight that they really did not want to fight? By that, I mean was the Islamic State so abhorrent to them that they would be willing to lay down their lives to fight it, or did they consider it nothing worth dying to destroy? The obvious answer to that question is no, they were not willing to die to destroy it. Also, why don’t we see hundreds of millions of Muslims, all over the world, running to the Middle East to join the Jordanians and others in the fight against the Islamic State? While I’m sure there are a few Muslims who went to the Middle East to join the almost non-existent fight against the Islamic State, there are many more Muslims, both male and female, rushing to the Middle East to fight with the Islamic State. While we, non-Muslims, logically consider members of the Islamic State and other other terrorist organizations to be sick, twisted individuals who revere an insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile named Mohammad and his sock-puppet Allah, that feeling is clearly does not prevail among the Muslims of the world.
As a somewhat absurd example, but to demonstrate my point, if we are to believe that a vast majority of Muslims find the Islamic State and other Muslim terrorist organizations to be despicable, then how did two or three thousand members of the Islamic State take over Mosul with its 2 million citizens? We are told that we need to put American boots on the ground to help a Muslim army to engage in house to house fighting to free Mosul. This, to me, is a bit like being told that 2000 Neo-Nazis have taken over Munich, Germany, and we must send in troops to free the 1.7 million residents of Munich. I think the good people of Munich would quickly wipe out the Neo-Nazis. In fact, even though most citizens of Munich do not own firearms (unlike the citizens of Mosul), with a 1000:1 advantage, I am absolutely confident that the Germans would never allow such an atrocity to occur. Or, to think of the concept another way, what do you think would happen if 2000 homosexual atheists tried to take over Houston, Texas? Lets face it; it would not happen. Texans love their guns and religion too much to allow that to happen.
Lets stop all of this nonsense about how Islam is a “religion of peace”. Most of the wars in the world, today and for the last 20 years, revolve around Islam. And, lets remember that Islam and its slave trade was one of the first enemies that the United States faced. In fact, it was the Barbary Pirates that lead to the founding of the United States Navy in 1794. And, one of the first peace treaties entered into by the United States was the treaty of Tripoli, signed with the Muslim pirates on November 4, 1796.
Interestingly, Article 11 of that treaty specifically states:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
(The fact that the treaty was unanimously accepted by the United States Senate should put to rest the statements by some Americans that the United States is somehow a Christian nation. )
Of course, like most treaties with Muslims, as per Mohammad’s breaking of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, that treaty was broken and the United States navy had to fight several wars with the Muslims in the early 1800’s. So, being at war with Muslims is nothing new.
But, it is time for us to extricate ourselves from the constant warfare that has been a fact of life for Muslims since Mohammad invented Islam. If the Muslims truly find the Islamic State abhorrent and intolerable, then they must eliminate it. Lets face it, we have sold many of the Muslim nations in the Middle East tens of billions of dollars worth of arms; it is time for them to put those arms to good use. One of our problems is that we think every nation should be a liberal democracy. But, democracies don’t work, in general, with uneducated Muslims that have been brainwashed since infancy with Islam. In Islam, in fact, democracies are forbidden, because it means that direction is coming from people, not Allah. That is forbidden, or shirk. Also, to impose any system of law other than Sharia is forbidden, since Sharia is the law given by Allah. Any other laws are man-made, and thus forbidden, or shirk.
Lets look at the history of “democracy” in Muslim countries. We encouraged (and probably even instigated) the Arab Spring. What happened? Egyptians elected the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization. We insisted that the Palestinians vote for a government. They elected Hamas, a terrorist organization. We insisted on elections in Iraq. Iraq put into power a Shia government that was closely aligned with Iran, a terrorist nation. Since Shia are a minority in Iraq, and did their best to oppress the majority Sunni population, the Islamic State was born. As soon as we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over again.
No, the problem with the Islamic State is one for the Muslims to solve. I don’t believe that the Muslims really want to solve the problem, howver, if that means destroying it. I think a few hundred million Muslims (at least) would like to see the return of the Caliphate and everything that they think will come with it. Thus, there is no great will among hundreds of millions of Muslims to see the Islamic State destroyed.
The murders of cartoonists who made fun of Islam and of Jews shopping for their Sabbath meals by Islamists in Paris last week have galvanized the world. A galvanized world is always dangerous. Galvanized people can do careless things. It is in the extreme and emotion-laden moments that distance and coolness are most required. I am tempted to howl in rage. It is not my place to do so. My job is to try to dissect the event, place it in context and try to understand what has happened and why. From that, after the rage cools, plans for action can be made. Rage has its place, but actions must be taken with discipline and thought.
I have found that in thinking about things geopolitically, I can cool my own rage and find, if not meaning, at least explanation for events such as these. As it happens, my new book will be published on Jan. 27. Titled Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe, it is about the unfolding failure of the great European experiment, the European Union, and the resurgence of European nationalism. It discusses the re-emerging borderlands and flashpoints of Europe and raises the possibility that Europe’s attempt to abolish conflict will fail. I mention this book because one chapter is on the Mediterranean borderland and the very old conflict between Islam and Christianity. Obviously this is a matter I have given some thought to, and I will draw on Flashpoints to begin making sense of the murderers and murdered, when I think of things in this way.
Let me begin by quoting from that chapter:
We’ve spoken of borderlands, and how they are both linked and divided. Here is a border sea, differing in many ways but sharing the basic characteristic of the borderland. Proximity separates as much as it divides. It facilitates trade, but also war. For Europe this is another frontier both familiar and profoundly alien.
Islam invaded Europe twice from the Mediterranean — first in Iberia, the second time in southeastern Europe, as well as nibbling at Sicily and elsewhere. Christianity invaded Islam multiple times, the first time in the Crusades and in the battle to expel the Muslims from Iberia. Then it forced the Turks back from central Europe. The Christians finally crossed the Mediterranean in the 19th century, taking control of large parts of North Africa. Each of these two religions wanted to dominate the other. Each seemed close to its goal. Neither was successful. What remains true is that Islam and Christianity were obsessed with each other from the first encounter. Like Rome and Egypt they traded with each other and made war on each other.
Christians and Muslims have been bitter enemies, battling for control of Iberia. Yet, lest we forget, they also have been allies: In the 16th century, Ottoman Turkey and Venice allied to control the Mediterranean. No single phrase can summarize the relationship between the two save perhaps this: It is rare that two religions might be so obsessed with each other and at the same time so ambivalent. This is an explosive mixture.
Migration, Multiculturalism and Ghettoization
The current crisis has its origins in the collapse of European hegemony over North Africa after World War II and the Europeans’ need for cheap labor. As a result of the way in which they ended their imperial relations, they were bound to allow the migration of Muslims into Europe, and the permeable borders of the European Union enabled them to settle where they chose. The Muslims, for their part, did not come to join in a cultural transformation. They came for work, and money, and for the simplest reasons. The Europeans’ appetite for cheap labor and the Muslims’ appetite for work combined to generate a massive movement of populations.
The matter was complicated by the fact that Europe was no longer simply Christian. Christianity had lost its hegemonic control over European culture over the previous centuries and had been joined, if not replaced, by a new doctrine of secularism. Secularism drew a radical distinction between public and private life, in which religion, in any traditional sense, was relegated to the private sphere with no hold over public life. There are many charms in secularism, in particular the freedom to believe what you will in private. But secularism also poses a public problem. There are those whose beliefs are so different from others’ beliefs that finding common ground in the public space is impossible. And then there are those for whom the very distinction between private and public is either meaningless or unacceptable. The complex contrivances of secularism have their charm, but not everyone is charmed.
Europe solved the problem with the weakening of Christianity that made the ancient battles between Christian factions meaningless. But they had invited in people who not only did not share the core doctrines of secularism, they rejected them. What Christianity had come to see as progress away from sectarian conflict, Muslims (and some Christians) may see as simply decadence, a weakening of faith and the loss of conviction.
There is here a question of what we mean when we speak of things like Christianity, Islam and secularism. There are more than a billion Christians and more than a billion Muslims and uncountable secularists who mix all things. It is difficult to decide what you mean when you say any of these words and easy to claim that anyone else’s meaning is (or is not) the right one. There is a built-in indeterminacy in our use of language that allows us to shift responsibility for actions in Paris away from a religion to a minor strand in a religion, or to the actions of only those who pulled the trigger. This is the universal problem of secularism, which eschews stereotyping. It leaves unclear who is to be held responsible for what. By devolving all responsibility on the individual, secularism tends to absolve nations and religions from responsibility.
This is not necessarily wrong, but it creates a tremendous practical problem. If no one but the gunmen and their immediate supporters are responsible for the action, and all others who share their faith are guiltless, you have made a defensible moral judgment. But as a practical matter, you have paralyzed your ability to defend yourselves. It is impossible to defend against random violence and impermissible to impose collective responsibility. As Europe has been for so long, its moral complexity has posed for it a problem it cannot easily solve. Not all Muslims — not even most Muslims — are responsible for this. But all who committed these acts were Muslims claiming to speak for Muslims. One might say this is a Muslim problem and then hold the Muslims responsible for solving it. But what happens if they don’t? And so the moral debate spins endlessly.
This dilemma is compounded by Europe’s hidden secret: The Europeans do not see Muslims from North Africa or Turkey as Europeans, nor do they intend to allow them to be Europeans. The European solution to their isolation is the concept of multiculturalism — on the surface a most liberal notion, and in practice, a movement for both cultural fragmentation and ghettoization. But behind this there is another problem, and it is also geopolitical. I say in Flashpoints that:
Multiculturalism and the entire immigrant enterprise faced another challenge. Europe was crowded. Unlike the United States, it didn’t have the room to incorporate millions of immigrants — certainly not on a permanent basis. Even with population numbers slowly declining, the increase in population, particularly in the more populous countries, was difficult to manage. The doctrine of multiculturalism naturally encouraged a degree of separatism. Culture implies a desire to live with your own people. Given the economic status of immigrants the world over, the inevitable exclusion that is perhaps unintentionally incorporated in multiculturalism and the desire of like to live with like, the Muslims found themselves living in extraordinarily crowded and squalid conditions. All around Paris there are high-rise apartment buildings housing and separating Muslims from the French, who live elsewhere.
These killings have nothing to do with poverty, of course. Newly arrived immigrants are always poor. That’s why they immigrate. And until they learn the language and customs of their new homes, they are always ghettoized and alien. It is the next generation that flows into the dominant culture. But the dirty secret of multiculturalism was that its consequence was to perpetuate Muslim isolation. And it was not the intention of Muslims to become Europeans, even if they could. They came to make money, not become French. The shallowness of the European postwar values system thereby becomes the horror show that occurred in Paris last week.
The Role of Ideology
But while the Europeans have particular issues with Islam, and have had them for more than 1,000 years, there is a more generalizable problem. Christianity has been sapped of its evangelical zeal and no longer uses the sword to kill and convert its enemies. At least parts of Islam retain that zeal. And saying that not all Muslims share this vision does not solve the problem. Enough Muslims share that fervency to endanger the lives of those they despise, and this tendency toward violence cannot be tolerated by either their Western targets or by Muslims who refuse to subscribe to a jihadist ideology. And there is no way to distinguish those who might kill from those who won’t. The Muslim community might be able to make this distinction, but a 25-year-old European or American policeman cannot. And the Muslims either can’t or won’t police themselves. Therefore, we are left in a state of war. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has called this a war on radical Islam. If only they wore uniforms or bore distinctive birthmarks, then fighting only the radical Islamists would not be a problem. But Valls’ distinctions notwithstanding, the world can either accept periodic attacks, or see the entire Muslim community as a potential threat until proven otherwise. These are terrible choices, but history is filled with them. Calling for a war on radical Islamists is like calling for war on the followers of Jean-Paul Sartre. Exactly what do they look like?
The European inability to come to terms with the reality it has created for itself in this and other matters does not preclude the realization that wars involving troops are occurring in many Muslim countries. The situation is complex, and morality is merely another weapon for proving the other guilty and oneself guiltless. The geopolitical dimensions of Islam’s relationship with Europe, or India, or Thailand, or the United States, do not yield to moralizing.
Something must be done. I don’t know what needs to be done, but I suspect I know what is coming. First, if it is true that Islam is merely responding to crimes against it, those crimes are not new and certainly didn’t originate in the creation of Israel, the invasion of Iraq or recent events. This has been going on far longer than that. For instance, the Assassins were a secret Islamic order to make war on individuals they saw as Muslim heretics. There is nothing new in what is going on, and it will not end if peace comes to Iraq, Muslims occupy Kashmir or Israel is destroyed. Nor is secularism about to sweep the Islamic world. The Arab Spring was a Western fantasy that the collapse of communism in 1989 was repeating itself in the Islamic world with the same results. There are certainly Muslim liberals and secularists. However, they do not control events — no single group does — and it is the events, not the theory, that shape our lives.
Europe’s sense of nation is rooted in shared history, language, ethnicity and yes, in Christianity or its heir, secularism. Europe has no concept of the nation except for these things, and Muslims share in none of them. It is difficult to imagine another outcome save for another round of ghettoization and deportation. This is repulsive to the European sensibility now, but certainly not alien to European history. Unable to distinguish radical Muslims from other Muslims, Europe will increasingly and unintentionally move in this direction.
Paradoxically, this will be exactly what the radical Muslims want because it will strengthen their position in the Islamic world in general, and North Africa and Turkey in particular. But the alternative to not strengthening the radical Islamists is living with the threat of death if they are offended. And that is not going to be endured in Europe.
Perhaps a magic device will be found that will enable us to read the minds of people to determine what their ideology actually is. But given the offense many in the West have taken to governments reading emails, I doubt that they would allow this, particularly a few months from now when the murders and murderers are forgotten, and Europeans will convince themselves that the security apparatus is simply trying to oppress everyone. And of course, never minimize the oppressive potential of security forces.
The United States is different in this sense. It is an artificial regime, not a natural one. It was invented by our founders on certain principles and is open to anyone who embraces those principles. Europe’s nationalism is romantic, naturalistic. It depends on bonds that stretch back through time and cannot be easily broken. But the idea of shared principles other than their own is offensive to the religious everywhere, and at this moment in history, this aversion is most commonly present among Muslims. This is a truth that must be faced.
The Mediterranean borderland was a place of conflict well before Christianity and Islam existed. It will remain a place of conflict even if both lose their vigorous love of their own beliefs. It is an illusion to believe that conflicts rooted in geography can be abolished. It is also a mistake to be so philosophical as to disengage from the human fear of being killed at your desk for your ideas. We are entering a place that has no solutions. Such a place does have decisions, and all of the choices will be bad. What has to be done will be done, and those who refused to make choices will see themselves as more moral than those who did. There is a war, and like all wars, this one is very different from the last in the way it is prosecuted. But it is war nonetheless, and denying that is denying the obvious.
Editor’s Note: The newest book by Stratfor chairman and founder George Friedman, Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe, will be released Jan. 27. It is now available for pre-order.
I’m sorry; a lot of people will disagree with this post. But, the only solution to the Gitmo problem is a bullet to the head of the detainees. What else can we do? We know that if we release them, they will almost certainly return to the battlefield. Catch and release only works with trout; not with Muslims.
Even a monster as abhorrent as the leader of the “Islamic State”, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, said, when released from prison, “…see you in New York”. This explains the situation that revolves around the Muslim barbarians like those in Gitmo. If we release them, they will almost certainly return to the battlefield to kill even more civilized people. If we simply put a bullet in their heads, they will not return to the battlefield, and we will no longer have to pay for their room-and-board.
Of course, there are a lot of stupid and uninformed people that will argue that we must give them their rights under the Geneva, and other, conventions. But, those protections DO NOT APPLY to the barbarians in Gitmo. They only apply to uniformed soldiers of a recognized country. The Muslims captured on the battlefield are not uniformed soldiers of a recognized government. The only way they can be categorized is as a “spy”. The only thing a spy is entitled to is a bullet to the head, or some other similarly quick death.
So, lets stop all the ridiculous posturing that tries to save the lives of Muslim barbarians. Their lives are not only worthless, but they are harmful to the people that inhabit the civilized world.
Yes, close Gitmo. But, don’t set the Muslim barbarians free to kill again. Exterminate them.
I noticed that my page hits were going up rapidly, mostly because I have been outspoken in emphasizing that it is important to ridicule Islam, and especially Mohammad, because it is only by ridicule that we are going to discredit and eventually eliminate (or at least bring into the 19th century) Islam. (It will be generations before we bring them into a more modern time because they are so brainwashed, starting as children.) Lets face it, Muslims revere a 7th century, insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile named Mohammad and his sock puppet Allah. The atrocity that occurred in France, today, was just another example of that fact.
The satirical magazine Charlie-Hebdo has been publishing satirical cartoons about Mohammed, Islam, and all other religions and religious characters for years. And, it is their absolute right to do so. If they, or anybody else, is stopped from publishing cartoons or satire, then free speech is dead and the civilized world is doomed. And, as I will point out later, Europe is especially threatened by Islam since they are even more politically correct than the United States and have catered to Muslim immigrants and allowed them to live by themselves, in their own communities, without even making a token effort to assimilate into society.
Here are some of those cartoons from Charlie-Hebdo.
For these totally harmless cartoons, Muslims went, well, Muslim.
Hopefully, people will finally start admitting that Islam really is something that must be stamped out, and that the civilized world needs to stop bending over backward to avoid “offending” the perpetually offended. Lets face it, most wars in the world, today, are because of Islam. The United States has pissed away over $3 trillion dollars over the last 14 years, not to mention thousands of lives, fighting Islam. It is time we cut them off from the civilized world, make them live by our laws if they want to live in the Western world, and not tolerate their temper tantrums, violence, and barbarity.
It is also vital that the media publish as many of the cartoons as possible. Lets face it, the Piss Christ “art” exhibit did not cause death or rioting. Sure, it upset a few Christians, but they didn’t resort to violence. Oh, you did hear about that? The very fact that you did not hear about that is, itself, an indication that Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and others, have learned to “grin and bear it”. Some even have a sense of humor about such things. Here is a picture of that “art”.
Now, imagine what would have happened if that “artist” had taken a representation of Mohammad and put it in a bottle of his own urine, instead?! You know what would have happened, and what the Muslims would have claimed later.
Since I noticed about 10 times the normal volume on my site, today, and most of it was searching for the Mohammad cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten a few years ago, I thought I would make it easier for people and publish them again.
But, since it is obviously necessary to start getting Muslims used to being ridiculed, just like the rest of us have been over the years, here are some more cartoons that I found, and published, over the years.
Muhammad in Hell; Dante’s Inferno Canto 28, verses 30-31; Illustration by Gustave Dore Source: Gutenberg Project
And, for those of you that think that Muslims want to leave in peace in the civilized world and integrate into society like the rest of us did, I have two more cartoons for you.
And, as a final comment on Islam and the Koran.
Lets all stand up for free speech and freedom of the press.
As much as I absolutely hate the idea of the bankrupt government spending any money, at all, since it is bankrupt and has no money, we have reached an extremely critical point in history with the total surrender of Sony and the United States government to a short, fat, insane dictator with bad hair in North Korea. The United States has lost every major war it entered, or started, since World War II. We cannot afford to lose the first cyber war, especially since it was launched by a clown like Kim Jong-Un.
We have faced many situations where loony people, and loony ideology, like that of the Muslims, has threatened civilization. In particular, I remember two disgraceful events that occurred over the last 10 years. In 2005 we had the atrocious situation where Muslims went, well, Muslim, when a few cartoons of Mohammed were released that the Muslims considered “disrespectful” of “the Prophet” (piss be upon him). Papers and magazines refused to publish the cartoons. Many people could not even understand what the fuss was about: “what cartoons”. I made sure to publish them on my sites, since there is no better weapon against insane ideologies, like Islam, than satire and simply making fun of ludicrous beliefs. But, to make things ever more bizarre, Jytte Klausen wrote a book about the cartoon controversy that finally got published in 2009. It was published by Yale University Press, but they refused to include copies of the cartoons!!! How insane! First of all, how could anyone publish a book about the Mohammad cartoons that caused Muslims to commit insane acts of death, destruction, rioting and mahem, and not include the cartoons which were obviously the very reason for the book? The answer: COWARDICE and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Both of these will get civilization destroyed!
Now, we have an ugly, insane, fat dictator whose family is responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and the miserable life condition of dozens of millions of other subjects, threatening the United States if Sony publishes a movie that makes fun of his assassination. The simple fact is that there are few people that deserve assassination more than Kim Jong-Un. The idea that we would capitulate to his demands is terrifying and absurd.
I understand why Sony caved. They might be legally liable if theatres were blown up by the North Koreans, or their minions, if the movie was shown. But, to not show the movie, for fear of an animal like Kim Jong-Un is inexcusable. We must make the movie available to anyone that wants to see it, including the poor subjects in North Korea. While I am against the government spending money, since it has none, I would fully support the US government buying the rights to this movie for, say, $60 million, and releasing it, for free on the internet. I have heard that Sony spent about $40 million for the movie. So, with this arrangement, they would make $20 million. Not a lot, but more than they will make if it is not shown. At the same time, the North Korean government, and specifically, Kim Jong-Un will be mocked and their threats will be dismissed. This is vital; their threats must not be tolerated or accepted.
Of course, if North Korea does anything further in the way of terrorizing or damaging the United States, then we must take further steps. And, we should make it clear that we will not tolerate threats or aggression on the part of North Korea or any other country. But, if we do not make this movie generally available, and spit in the eye of Kim Jong-Un, the future cost will be terrible, both in terms of what North Korea may do to us, as well as what other rogue regimes, like Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and ISIS may do to us in the future.
I can’t believe that Sony pictures caved to the barbaric demands of a dictator like Kim Jong-Un. It is sad to say, but it just shows how cowardly Obama is, and how having nuclear weapons gives you the power to do virtually anything. (And, this is exactly why North Korea stated they needed nuclear weapons.) And, we keep forgetting that a rogue nation like Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and another rogue nation like Iran almost certainly has nuclear weapons. (OK, the official government line is that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, but that is absurd. To believe that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, after 35 years of research and develop, is absurd. We developed a working bomb in less than 4 years, almost 70 years ago. If you believe that Iran still does not have a bomb, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Why do you think we have been letting up on the sanctions on Iran? We are afraid of them, which is exactly why countries like Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons.)
Anyway, this fat, insane, tin-pot dictator with bad hair in North Korea does not like a movie about his assassination. So what?! Plenty of people don’t like movies that were made about them. And, I can’t think of a “leader” that is more deserving of being “taken out”. (Ok, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, also needs to be taken out, but he does not, yet (as far as I know) have nuclear weapons.) But, the idea that America is bowing to Kim’s demands is not only embarrassing, it is dangerous. Next, we will hear (backed by realistic force) demands from Putin. And, how about demands from ISIS. After all, there are something like 1.8 billion muslims, and at least 25 to 30% of them actually believe the crap in the Koran, and thus want a caliphate. Plus, many Muslims in countries like Egypt, Malaysia, Afghanistan and Pakistan have pledged allegiance to ISIS. (I predicted the new caliphate several years ago, during the height of the “Islamic Spring”, which I called the “Islamic Winter”).
It is scary to realize how far America has fallen. 60 years ago, we were the greatest nation on the earth. Now, we are a laughing stock, having lost virtually every war since WW2, and apparently unable to stand up to even a murdering moron like Kim Jung-Un. Rather than showing the movie in theatres, since North Korea has apparently threatened violence to the theatres if the movie is shown, Sony should release the movie to cable, tv, dvd, and the Internet immediately, and for free! After all, they have absolutely nothing to loose, financially, since they have said that they are not going to release it to theaters, DVD, or other commercial outlets, so releasing it for free would not cause a financial hit. But, by releasing it, immediately, or, better yet, on Christmas day as was originally planned, they would spit in the eye of boy Kim Jung-Un and America would show that it fears nobody. And, of course, if North Korea carries out attacks, then we should send their leaders to Hell with immediate tactical nuclear strikes.
Lets remember, if we had been smart, and used tactical nuclear weapons in Tora-Bora 13 years ago, we probably would not have had to piss away several trillions of dollars, and the lives of thousands of American soldiers, in Afghanistan. Everyone is terrified of tactical nuclear weapons, but they would have been perfect in Tora-Bora and other similar locations where there were no significant civilian populations within a few miles. (Yes, I said miles. Tactical nuclear weapons don’t destroy thousands of square miles, and kill everything within thousands of square miles of “ground-zero”.) If we had used tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan in the early 2000’s, we would have saved well over a trillion dollars and thousands, or maybe even tens of thousands if you include Muslims, of lives. And, bin Laden would have been dead a decade earlier. Of course, he might have been “vaporized”, rather than just double-tapped in the head, but he would have been dead. And, in either case, we would not have seen the evidence. And, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, now that we are leaving, it is clear that the Taliban are taking over, again, and it is retuning, full steam, to the Islamic hell that it was before 911. This is just the same as what happened in Iraq once we left, as I predicted.
It is time to either stand up as a proud America, or just give up and give in to the Muslims and communists.
Nuclear talks with Iran have failed to yield an agreement, but the deadline for a deal has been extended without a hitch. What would have been a significant crisis a year ago, replete with threats and anxiety, has been handled without drama or difficulty. This new response to yet another failure to reach an accord marks a shift in the relationship between the United States and Iran, a shift that can’t be understood without first considering the massive geopolitical shifts that have taken place in the Middle East, redefining the urgency of the nuclear issue.
These shifts are rooted in the emergence of the Islamic State. Ideologically, there is little difference between the Islamic State and other radical Islamic jihadist movements. But in terms of geographical presence, the Islamic State has set itself apart from the rest. While al Qaeda might have longed to take control of a significant nation-state, it primarily remained a sparse, if widespread, terrorist organization. It held no significant territory permanently; it was a movement, not a place. But the Islamic State, as its name suggests, is different. It sees itself as the kernel from which a transnational Islamic state should grow, and it has established itself in Syria and Iraq as a geographical entity. The group controls a roughly defined region in the two countries, and it has something of a conventional military, designed to defend and expand the state’s control. Thus far, whatever advances and reversals it has seen, the Islamic State has retained this character. While the group certainly funnels a substantial portion of its power into dispersed guerrilla formations and retains a significant regional terrorist apparatus, it remains something rather new for the region — an Islamist movement acting as a regional state.
It is unclear whether the Islamic State can survive. It is under attack by American aircraft, and the United States is attempting to create a coalition force that will attack and conquer it. It is also unclear whether the group can expand. The Islamic State appears to have reached its limits in Kurdistan, and the Iraqi army (which was badly defeated in the first stage of the Islamic State’s emergence) is showing some signs of being able to launch counteroffensives.
A New Territorial Threat
The Islamic State has created a vortex that has drawn in regional and global powers, redefining how they behave. The group’s presence is both novel and impossible to ignore because it is a territorial entity. Nations have been forced to readjust their policies and relations with each other as a result. We see this inside of Syria and Iraq. Damascus and Baghdad are not the only ones that need to deal with the Islamic State; other regional powers — Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia chief among them — need to recalculate their positions as well. A terrorist organization can inflict pain and cause turmoil, but it survives by remaining dispersed. The Islamic State has a terrorism element, but it is also a concentrated force that could potentially expand its territory. The group behaves geopolitically, and as long as it survives it poses a geopolitical challenge.
Within Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State represents elements of the Sunni Arab population. It has imposed itself on the Sunni Arab regions of Iraq, and although resistance to Islamic State power certainly exists among Sunnis, some resistance to any emergent state is inevitable. The Islamic State has managed to cope with this resistance so far. But the group also has pressed against the boundaries of the Kurdish and Shiite regions, and it has sought to create a geographical link with its forces in Syria, changing Iraq’s internal dynamic considerably. Where the Sunnis were once weak and dispersed, the Islamic State has now become a substantial force in the region north and west of Baghdad, posing a possible threat to Kurdish oil production and Iraqi governance. The group has had an even more complex effect in Syria, as it has weakened other groups resisting the government of Syrian President Bashar al Assad, thereby strengthening al Assad’s position while increasing its own power. This dynamic illustrates the geopolitical complexity of the Islamic State’s presence.
Countering with a Coalition
The United States withdrew from Iraq hoping that Baghdad, even if unable to govern its territory with a consistent level of authority, would nevertheless develop a balance of power in Iraq in which various degrees of autonomy, formal and informal, would be granted. It was an ambiguous goal, though not unattainable. But the emergence of the Islamic State upset the balance in Iraq dramatically, and initial weaknesses in Iraqi and Kurdish forces facing Islamic State fighters forced the United States to weigh the possibility of the group dominating large parts of Iraq and Syria. This situation posed a challenge that the United States could neither decline nor fully engage. Washington’s solution was to send aircraft and minimal ground forces to attack the Islamic State, while seeking to build a regional coalition that would act.
Today, the key to this coalition is Turkey. Ankara has become a substantial regional power. It has the largest economy and military in the region, and it is the most vulnerable to events in Syria and Iraq, which run along Turkey’s southern border. Ankara’s strategy under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been to avoid conflicts with its neighbors, which it has been able to do successfully so far. The United States now wants Turkey to provide forces — particularly ground troops — to resist the Islamic State. Ankara has an interest in doing so, since Iraqi oil would help diversify its sources of energy and because it wants to keep the conflict from spilling into Turkey. The Turkish government has worked hard to keep the Syrian conflict outside its borders and to limit its own direct involvement in the civil war. Ankara also does not want the Islamic State to create pressure on Iraqi Kurds that could eventually spread to Turkish Kurds.
Turkey is in a difficult situation. If it intervenes against the Islamic State alongside the United States, its army will be tested in a way that it has not been tested since the Korean War, and the quality of its performance is uncertain. The risks are real, and victory is far from guaranteed. Turkey would be resuming the role it played in the Arab world during the Ottoman Empire, attempting to shape Arab politics in ways that it finds satisfactory. The United States did not do this well in Iraq, and there is no guarantee that Turkey would succeed either. In fact, Ankara could be drawn into a conflict with the Arab states from which it would not be able to withdraw as neatly as Washington did.
At the same time, instability to Turkey’s south and the emergence of a new territorial power in Syria and Iraq represent fundamental threats to Ankara. There are claims that the Turks secretly support the Islamic State, but I doubt this greatly. The Turks may be favorably inclined toward other Islamist groups, but the Islamic State is both dangerous and likely to draw pressure from the United States against any of its supporters. Still, the Turks will not simply do America’s bidding; Ankara has interests in Syria that do not mesh with those of the United States.
Turkey wants to see the al Assad regime toppled, but the United States is reluctant to do so for fear of opening the door to a Sunni jihadist regime (or at the very least, jihadist anarchy) that, with the Islamic State operational, would be impossible to shape. To some extent, the Turks are floating the al Assad issue as an excuse not to engage in the conflict. But Ankara wants al Assad gone and a pro-Turkey Sunni regime in his place. If the United States refuses to cede to this demand, Turkey has a basis for refusing to intervene; if the United States agrees, Turkey gets the outcome it wants in Syria, but at greater risk to Iraq. Thus the Islamic State has become the focal point of U.S.-Turkish ties, replacing prior issues such as Turkey’s relationship with Israel.
Iran’s Changing Regional Role
The emergence of the Islamic State has similarly redefined Iran’s posture in the region. Tehran sees a pro-Iranian, Shiite-dominated regime in Baghdad as critical to its interests, just as it sees its domination of southern Iraq as crucial. Iran fought a war with a Sunni-dominated Iraq in the 1980s, with devastating casualties; avoiding another such war is fundamental to Iranian national security policy. From Tehran’s point of view, the Islamic State has the ability to cripple the government in Baghdad and potentially unravel Iran’s position in Iraq. Though this is not the most likely outcome, it is a potential threat that Iran must counter.
Small Iranian formations have already formed in eastern Kurdistan, and Iranian personnel have piloted Iraqi aircraft in attacks on Islamic State positions. The mere possibility of the Islamic State dominating even parts of Iraq is unacceptable to Tehran, which aligns its interests with those of the United States. Both countries want the Islamic State broken. Both want the government in Baghdad to function. The Americans have no problem with Iran guaranteeing security in the south, and the Iranians have no objection to a pro-American Kurdistan so long as they continue to dominate southern oil flows.
Because of the Islamic State — as well as greater long-term trends — the United States and Iran have been drawn together by their common interests. There have been numerous reports of U.S.-Iranian military cooperation against the Islamic State, while the major issue dividing them (Iran’s nuclear program) has been marginalized. Monday’s announcement that no settlement had been reached in nuclear talks was followed by a calm extension of the deadline for agreement, and neither side threatened the other or gave any indication that the failure changed the general accommodation that has been reached. In our view, as we have always said, achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon is far more difficult than enriching uranium, and Iran is not an imminent nuclear power. That appears to have become the American position. Neither Washington nor Tehran wants to strain relations over the nuclear issue, which has been put on the back burner for now because of the Islamic State’s rise.
This new entente between the United States and Iran naturally alarms Saudi Arabia, the third major power in the region if only for its wealth and ability to finance political movements. Riyadh sees Tehran as a rival in the Persian Gulf that could potentially destabilize Saudi Arabia via its Shiite population. The Saudis also see the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their national security, even though they have been acting without Washington’s buy-in since the Arab Spring. Frightened by Iran’s warming relationship with the United States, Riyadh is also becoming increasingly concerned by America’s growing self-sufficiency in energy, which has dramatically reduced Saudi Arabia’s political importance to the United States.
There has been speculation that the Islamic State is being funded by Arabian powers, but it would be irrational for Riyadh to be funding the group. The stronger the Islamic State is, the firmer the ties between the United States and Iran become. Washington cannot live with a transnational caliphate that might become regionally powerful someday. The more of a threat the Islamic State becomes, the more Iran and the United States need each other, which runs completely counter to the Saudis’ security interests. Riyadh needs the tensions between the United States and Iran. Regardless of religious or ideological impulse, Tehran’s alliance with Washington forms an overwhelming force that threatens the Saudi regime’s survival. And the Islamic State has no love for the Saudi royal family. The caliphate can expand in Saudi Arabia’s direction, too, and we’ve already seen grassroots activity related to the Islamic State taking place inside the kingdom. Riyadh has been engaged in Iraq, and it must now try to strengthen Sunni forces other than the Islamic State quickly, so that the forces pushing Washington and Tehran together subside.
America’s Place at the Center of the Middle East
For Washington’s part, the Islamic State has shown that the idea of the United States simply leaving the region is unrealistic. At the same time, the United States will not engage in multidivisional warfare in Iraq. Washington failed to achieve a pro-American stability there the first time; it is unlikely to achieve it this time. U.S. air power applies significant force against the Islamic State and is a token of America’s power and presence — as well as its limits. The U.S. strategy of forming an alliance against the Islamic State is extremely complex, since the Turks do not want to be pulled into the fight without major concessions, the Iranians want reduced pressure on their nuclear programs in exchange for their help, and the Saudis are aware of the dangers posed by Iran.
What is noteworthy is the effect that the Islamic State has had on relationships in the region. The group’s emergence has once again placed the United States at the center of the regional system, and it has forced the three major Middle Eastern powers to redefine their relations with Washington in various ways. It has also revived the deepest fears of Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Ankara wants to avoid being drawn back into the late Ottoman nightmare of controlling Arabs, while Iran has been forced to realign itself with the United States to resist the rise of a Sunni Iraq and Saudi Arabia, as the Shah once had to do. Meanwhile, the Islamic State has raised Saudi fears of U.S. abandonment in favor of Iran, and the United States’ dread of re-engaging in Iraq has come to define all of its actions.
In the end, it is unlikely that the territorial Islamic State can survive. The truth is that Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia are all waiting for the United States to solve the Islamic State problem with air power and a few ground forces. These actions will not destroy the Islamic State, but they will break the group’s territorial coherence and force it to return to guerrilla tactics and terrorism. Indeed, this is already happening. But the group’s very existence, however temporary, has stunned the region into realizing that prior assumptions did not take into account current realities. Ankara will not be able to avoid increasing its involvement in the conflict; Tehran will have to live with the United States; and Riyadh will have to seriously consider its vulnerabilities. As for the United States, it can simply go home, even if the region is in chaos. But the others are already at home, and that is the point that the Islamic State has made abundantly clear.
We do not normally comment on domestic political affairs unless they affect international affairs. However, it is necessary to consider American political affairs because they are likely to have a particular effect on international relations. We have now entered the final phase of Barack Obama’s presidency, and like those of several other presidents since World War II, it is ending in what we call a state of failure. This is not a judgment on his presidency so much as on the political configuration within it and surrounding it.
The midterm elections are over, and Congress and the president are in gridlock. This in itself is not significant; presidents as popular as Dwight Eisenhower found themselves in this condition. The problem occurs when there is not only an institutional split but also a shift in underlying public opinion against the president. There are many more sophisticated analyses of public opinion on politics, but I have found it useful to use this predictive model.
Analyzing a President’s Strength
I assume that underneath all of the churning, about 40 percent of the electorate is committed to each party. Twenty percent is uncommitted, with half of those being indifferent to the outcome of politics and the other half being genuinely interested and undecided. In most normal conditions, the real battle between the parties — and by presidents — is to hold their own bases and take as much of the center as possible.
So long as a president is fighting for the center, his ability to govern remains intact. Thus, it is normal for a president to have a popularity rating that is less than 60 percent but more than 40 percent. When a president’s popularity rating falls substantially below 40 percent and remains there for an extended period of time, the dynamics of politics shift. The president is no longer battling for the center but is fighting to hold on to his own supporters — and he is failing to do so.
When the president’s support has fragmented to the point that he is fighting to recover his base, I considered that a failed presidency — particularly when Congress is in the hands of the opposition. His energy cannot be directed toward new initiatives. It is directed toward recovering his base. And presidents who have fallen into this condition near the end of their presidencies have not been likely to recover and regain the center.
Historically, when the president’s popularity rating has dipped to about 37 percent, his position has been unrecoverable. This is what happened to George W. Bush in 2006. It happened to Richard Nixon in 1974 when the Watergate crisis resulted in his resignation, and to Lyndon Johnson in 1967 during the Vietnam War. It also happened to Harry Truman in 1951, primarily because of the Korean War, and to Herbert Hoover before World War II because of the Great Depression.
However, this is not the final historical note on a presidency. Truman, enormously unpopular and unable to run for another term, is now widely regarded as one of the finest presidents the United States has had. Nixon, on the other hand, has never recovered. This is not therefore a judgment on Obama’s place in history, but simply on his current political condition. Nor does it take failure to lose the presidency; Jimmy Carter was defeated even though his popularity remained well in the 40s.
Of the five failed presidencies I’ve cited, one failed over scandal, one over the economy and three over wars — Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. Obama’s case is less clear than any. The 40 percent who gravitated to the opposition opposed him for a host of reasons. He lost the center for complex reasons as well. However, looking at the timing of his decline, the only intruding event that might have had that impact was the rise of the Islamic State and a sense, even in his own party, that he did not have an effective response to it. Historically, extended wars that the president did not appear to have a strategy for fighting have been devastating to the presidency. Woodrow Wilson’s war (World War I) was short and successful. Franklin Roosevelt’s war (World War II) was longer, and although it began in failure it became clear that a successful end was conceivable. The Korean, Vietnam and two Iraq wars suffered not from the length, but from the sense that the presidency did not have a war-ending strategy. Obama appears to me to have fallen into the political abyss because after six years he owned the war and appeared to have no grip on it.
Failure extends to domestic policy as well. The Republican-controlled legislature can pass whatever legislation it likes, but the president retains veto power, and two-thirds of both houses must vote to override. The problem is that given the president’s lack of popularity — and the fact that the presidency, all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election in two years — the president’s allies in Congress are not as willing to be held responsible for upholding his vetoes. Just as few Democrats wanted Obama campaigning for them, so too do few want to join the president in vetoing majority legislation. What broke Truman, Johnson and Nixon was the moment it became clear that their party’s leaders in Congress wanted them gone.
Acting Within Constraints
This does not mean that the president can’t act. It simply means that it is enormously more difficult to act than before. Gerald Ford, replacing Nixon but weakened by the pardoning of his predecessor, could not stop Congress from cutting off aid to South Vietnam during the final Communist assault. George W. Bush was able to launch the surge, but the surge was limited in size, not only because of strategic conditions but also because he had lost the ability to force Congress to fund alternative expansions of the war. In each of the failed presidencies, the president retained the ability to act but was constrained by the twin threats of an opposition-controlled Congress and his own party’s unwillingness to align with him.
At the same time, certain foreign diplomatic initiatives can continue. Nixon initiated negotiations between Egypt and Israel that culminated, under Carter’s administration, in the Camp David Accords. Truman tried to open negotiations with China, and the initiative’s failure had little to do with opposition to a negotiated settlement in Korea.
The president has few domestic options. Whatever Obama does with his power domestically, Congress can vote to cut funding, and if the act is vetoed, the president puts Congressional Democrats in mortal danger. The place where he can act — and this is likely the place Obama is least comfortable acting — is in foreign policy. There, the limited deployment of troops and diplomatic initiatives are possible.
Obama’s general strategy is to withdraw from existing conflicts in the Middle East and contain and limit Russian actions in Ukraine. The president has the ability to bring military and other pressure to bear. But the United States’ opponent is aware that the sitting president is no longer in control of Washington, that he has a specific date of termination and that the more unpopular things he does, the more likely his successor is to repudiate them. Therefore, in the China-North Korea model, the assumption is that that continuing the conflict and negotiating with the successor president is rational. In the same sense, Iran chose to wait for the election of Ronald Reagan rather than deal with Jimmy Carter (who was not a failed president).
This model depends on the opponent’s having the resources and the political will to continue the conflict in order to bargain with the president’s successor, and assumes that the successor will be more malleable. This is frequently the result, since the successor can make concessions more readily than his predecessor. In fact, he can make those concessions and gain points by blaming the need to concede on his predecessor. Ironically, Obama used this strategy after replacing George W. Bush. The failed president frequently tries to entice negotiation by increasing the military pressure on the enemy. Truman, Johnson and George W. Bush all took this path while seeking to end their wars. In no case did it work, but they had little to lose politically by trying.
Therefore, if we follow historical patterns, Obama will now proceed slowly and ineffectively to increase military operations in Syria and Iraq, while raising non-military pressure on Russia, or potentially initiating some low-level military activities in Ukraine. The actions will be designed to achieve a rapid negotiating process that will not happen. The presidency will shift to the other party, as it did with Truman, Johnson and George W. Bush. Thus, if patterns hold true, the Republicans will retake the presidency. This is not a pattern unknown to Congress, which means that the Democrats in the legislature will focus on running their own campaigns as far away from Obama and the next Democratic presidential candidate as possible.
The period of a failed presidency is therefore not a quiet time. The president is actively trying to save his legacy in the face of enormous domestic weakness. Other countries, particularly adversaries, see little reason to make concessions to failed presidents, preferring to deal with the next president instead. These adversaries then use military and political oppositions abroad to help shape the next U.S. presidential campaign in directions that are in their interests.
It is against this backdrop that all domestic activities take place. The president retains the veto, and if the president is careful he will be able to sustain it. Obama will engage in limited domestic politics, under heavy pressure from Congressional Democrats, confining himself to one or two things. His major activity will be coping with Syria, Iraq and Russia, both because of crises and the desire for a legacy. The last two years of a failed presidency are mostly about foreign policy and are not very pleasant to watch.
Of course, it is nowhere to be seen, because most Muslims are either in agreement with ISIS and al Qaeda, or afraid to admit that they object to their barbarity. Well, its time for them to be counted. Or, if they won’t be counted, it is time for us to eliminate Islam. Islam has always been a barbaric ideology based on the supposed sayings of an insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomanic, pedophile named Mohammed and his sock puppet Allah. It is time that the lame stream media admits that, and it is time that we stand up, as a civilized populace, against Islam. It was never a “religion of peace”, and it never will be. Maybe a religion of pieces, as in heads, hands, and other body parts, but not a “religion of peace”. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Back in the 1980’s, we were told the lamestream media position that AIDS was an equal opportunity disease. But, the clear evidence was that it was almost exclusively a disease of gay men. Today, I hope, most people realize that AIDS is a disease of, primarily, gay men. (At least in the Western world.)
But, lets get back to ISIS. We hear virtually no objections to them by Muslims. We hear virtually nothing in the way of Western Imams speaking out against them. Of course, you would not expect that, since ISIS follows the teachings of Islam to the letter. Any “good” “Muslim” will want to support them, since their ideology insists on following the teachings of the Koran. And, they insist on the formation of the “Caliphate”, which is fundamental to Islam. We should not be surprised that Turkey does not support our goals; after all, it was Attiturk that gave up the Caliphate in the early 1900’s. Why would Turkey want to dismisss the Calibphate that is essential to the spread of Islam and Islam’s hope to rule the world. While Turkey should never have been allowed to join NATO, it must be kicked out of NATO today since its core values are diametrically opposed to those of NATO nations.
Oh, and in case you don’t know, Islam demands that it controls the world. All people must be either Muslims, or bow to Muslims and pay the jizya, (the poll tax that is imposed on all non-Muslim inhabitants of Muslim lands).
If Muslims are not willing to violently oppose ISIS, al Qadea, and the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Muslim associations, Islam must be outlawed and destroyed in the modern world.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve had people at speaking engagements ask me if I thought the Islamic State or some other militant group is using Ebola as a biological weapon, or if such a group could do so in the future. Such questions and concerns are not surprising given the intense media hype that surrounds the disease, even though only one person has died from Ebola out of the three confirmed cases in the United States. The media hype about the threat posed by the Islamic State to the United States and the West is almost as bad. Both subjects of all this hype were combined into a tidy package on Oct. 20, when the Washington Post published an editorial by columnist Mark Thiessen in which he claimed it would be easy for a group such as the Islamic State to use Ebola in a terrorist attack. Despite Thiessen’s claims, using Ebola as a biological warfare agent is much more difficult than it might appear at first blush.
The 2014 Outbreak
In the past, there have been several outbreaks of Ebola in Africa. Countries included Sudan, Uganda, the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and several comparatively small outbreaks occurred in Gabon as well. In most cases, people who handled or ate animals infected with the disease started the outbreaks. “Bushmeat,” or portions of roasted meat from a variety of wild animals, is considered by many to be a delicacy in Africa, and in a continent where hunger is widespread, it is also a necessity for many hungry people. After several months of medical investigations, epidemiologists believe the current outbreak most likely began when a two-year-old child in Guinea touched or perhaps ate part of an infected animal such as a bat or monkey.
The source of the disease means it is highly unlikely that some malevolent actor intentionally caused the latest outbreak. Besides the fact that the current outbreak’s cause has been identified as a natural one, even if a transnational militant group such as the Islamic State was able to somehow develop an Ebola weapon, it would have chosen to deploy the weapon against a far more desirable target than a small village in Guinea. We would have seen the militants use their weapon in a location such as New York, Paris or London, or against their local enemies in Syria and Iraq.
As far as intent goes, there is very little doubt that such a group would employ a biological weapon. As we noted last month when there was increased talk about the Islamic State possibly weaponizing plague for a biological attack, terrorist attacks are intended to have a psychological impact that outweighs the physical damage they cause. The Islamic State itself has a long history of conducting brutal actions to foster panic.
In 2006 and 2007, the Islamic State’s predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq, included large quantities of chlorine in vehicle bombs deployed against U.S. and Iraqi troops in an attempt to produce mass casualties. The explosives in the vehicle bombs killed more people than the chlorine did, and after several unsuccessful attempts, al Qaeda in Iraq gave up on its chlorine bombings because the results were not worth the effort. Al Qaeda in Iraq also included chemical artillery rounds in improvised explosive devices used in attacks against American troops in Iraq on several occasions. Again, these attacks failed to produce mass casualties. Finally, according to human rights organizations, the Islamic State appears to have recently used some artillery rounds containing mustard gas against its enemies in Syria; the group presumably recovered the rounds from a former Saddam-era chemical weapons facility in Iraq or from Syrian stockpiles.
The problem, then, lies not with the Islamic State’s intent but instead with its capability to obtain and weaponize the Ebola virus. Creating a biological weapon is far more difficult than using a chemical such as chlorine or manufactured chemical munitions. Contrary to how the media frequently portrays them, biological weapons are not easy to obtain, they are not easy to deploy effectively and they do not always cause mass casualties.
The Difficulty of Weaponization
Ebola and terrorism are not new. Nor is the possibility of terrorist groups using the Ebola virus in an attack. As we have previously noted, the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo attempted to obtain the Ebola virus as part of its biological warfare program. The group sent a medical team to Africa under the pretext of being aid workers with the intent of obtaining samples of the virus. It failed in that mission, but even if it had succeeded, the group would have faced the challenge of getting the sample back to its biological warfare laboratory in Japan. The Ebola virus is relatively fragile. Its lifetime on dry surfaces outside of a host is only a couple of hours, and while some studies have shown that the virus can survive on surfaces for days when still in bodily fluids, this requires ideal conditions that would be difficult to replicate during transport.
If the group had been able to get the virus back to its laboratory, it would have then faced the challenge of reproducing the Ebola virus with enough volume to be used in a large-scale biological warfare attack, similar to its failed attacks on Tokyo and other Japanese cities in which the group sprayed thousands of gallons of botulinum toxin and Anthrax spores. Reproducing the Ebola virus would present additional challenges because it is an extremely dangerous virus to work with. It has infected researchers, even when they were working in laboratories with advanced biosafety measures in place. Although Aum Shinrikyo had a large staff of trained scientists and a state-of-the-art biological weapons laboratory, it was still unable to effectively weaponize the virus.
The challenges Aum Shinrikyo’s biological weapons program faced would be multiplied for the Islamic State. Aum Shinrikyo operatives were given a great deal of operational freedom until their plans were discovered after the 1995 sarin attacks on the Tokyo subway. (The group’s previous biological weapons attacks were so unsuccessful that nobody knew they had been carried out until after its members were arrested and its chemical and biological weapons factories were raided.) Unlike the Japanese cult, the Islamic State’s every move is under heavy scrutiny by most of the world’s intelligence and security agencies. This means jihadist operatives would have far more difficulty assembling the personnel and equipment needed to construct a biological weapons laboratory. Since randomly encountering an infected Ebola patient would be unreliable, the group would have to travel to a country impacted by the outbreak. This would be a difficult task for the group to complete without drawing attention to itself. Furthermore, once group members reached the infected countries, they would have to enter quarantined areas of medical facilities, retrieve the samples and then escape the country unnoticed, since they could not count on randomly encountering an infected Ebola patient.
Even if Islamic State operatives were somehow able to accomplish all of this — without killing themselves in the process — Ebola is not an ideal biological warfare vector. The virus is hard to pass from person to person. In fact, on average, its basic reproductive rate (the average amount of people that are infected by an Ebola patient) is only between one and two people. There are far more infectious diseases such as measles, which has a basic reproductive rate of 12-18, or smallpox, which has a basic reproductive rate of five to seven. Even HIV, which is only passed via sexual contact or intravenous blood transmission, has a basic reproductive rate of two to five.
Ebola’s Weakness as a Weapon
The Ebola disease is also somewhat slow to take effect, and infected individuals do not become symptomatic and contagious for an average of 8-10 days. The disease’s full incubation period can last anywhere from two to 21 days. As a comparison, influenza, which can be transmitted as quickly as three days after being contracted, can be spread before symptoms begin showing. This means that an Ebola attack would take longer to spread and would be easier to contain because infected people would be easier to identify.
Besides the fact that Ebola can only be passed through the bodily fluids of a person showing symptoms at the time, the virus in those bodily fluids must also somehow bypass the protection of a person’s skin. The infectious fluid must enter the body through a cut or abrasion, or come into contact with the mucus membranes in the eyes, nose or mouth. This is different from more contagious viruses like measles and smallpox, which are airborne viruses and do not require any direct contact or transfer of bodily fluids. Additionally, the Ebola virus is quite fragile and sensitive to light, heat and low-humidity environments, and bleach and other common disinfectants can kill it. This means it is difficult to spread the virus by contaminating surfaces with it. The only way to infect a large amount of people with Ebola would be to spray them with a fluid containing the virus, something that would be difficult to do and easily detectable.
Thiessen’s piece suggested that the Islamic State might implement an attack strategy of infecting suicide operatives with Ebola and then having them blow themselves up in a crowded place, spraying people with infected bodily fluids. One problem with this scenario is that it would be extremely difficult to get an infected operative from the group’s laboratory to the United States without being detected. As we have discussed elsewhere, jihadist groups have struggled to get operatives to the West to conduct conventional terrorist attacks using guns and bombs, a constraint that would also affect their ability to deploy a biological weapon.
Even if a hostile group did mange to get an operative in place, it would still face several important obstacles. By the time Ebola patients are highly contagious, they are normally very ill and bedridden with high fever, fatigue, vomiting and diarrhea, meaning they are not strong enough to walk into a crowded area. The heat and shock of the suicide device’s explosion would likely kill most of the virus. Anyone close enough to be exposed to the virus would also likely be injured by the blast and taken to a hospital, where they would then be quarantined and treated for the virus.
OK, so do you moronic socialists and communists still think that your precious government and Obama will save you and protect you? Unless you have been stoned and unconscious (not unlikely) for the last week, it turns out that even the secret service has given up on doing their job of protecting the President. The week opened by allowing a “disabled” war veteran to jump over the fence, sprint across the lawn, and deck a member of the secret service. After that, he frolicked around the White House until he was subdued by an off duty secret service agent or two. Of course, when he jumped the fence and ran toward the White House, he should have been stopped, at least, by the dogs. But, they were not released. Why? One report was that they had attacked Obama’s dog. Another said that they could not be released because they might have attacked secret service officers. Excuse me, but this sounds like a problem for Cesar Milan, not an excuse for not stopping a potential Presidential murderer. To add insult to incompetence, the front door of the White House was unlocked. Why was the front door of the home of the most important person in the world unlocked? Don’t you lock your front door? Especially if you live in Washington D.C.? Stunning incompetence.
Then, we find out that the secret service allowed an armed man who was not cleared to be armed onto an elevator at the CDC with President Obama. WHAT?? Of course, the head of the secret service resigned and we are told that there is a deep political problem within the secret service. People who point out problems are censured. Sound familiar?? We hear this about virtually all federal agencies. But, when whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden take the story into their own hands, we are told that they are wrong and that they should have talked to their superiors about their issues. R-I-G-H-T.
Next, we hear that a person with Ebola was allowed to enter the country. Of course, the fact that this happened was inevitable and any person with even half a brain knew that it would happen. To highlight the total incompetence of the government in the case of Ebola, lets recall Obama’s statement at the CDC 2 weeks ago, on September 16, 2014:
First and foremost, I want the American people to know that our experts, here at the CDC and across our government, agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low. We’ve been taking the necessary precautions, including working with countries in West Africa to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn’t get on a plane for the United States. In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we’ve taken new measures so that we’re prepared here at home. We’re working to help flight crews identify people who are sick, and more labs across our country now have the capacity to quickly test for the virus. We’re working with hospitals to make sure that they are prepared, and to ensure that our doctors, our nurses and our medical staff are trained, are ready, and are able to deal with a possible case safely.
Wow. How did that work out?!? Incompetence!!! (I hope. Some would say it is intentional; I’m not quite that cynical, yet.)
When this clown arrived, he was given antibiotics by Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital and sent home! Here is a guy from West Africa who reports with clear symptoms of Ebola. Here is a guy who handled a woman that died of Ebola a few days earlier. Here is the very poster boy for Ebola. Sent home. With an antibiotic. (Never mind the fact that antibiotics are worthless against a virus.) Then, two days later he shows up in an ambulance and is finally admitted. The result, as it stands at the moment, is that upward of 100 people may have been exposed to Ebola. While I don’t believe all of them will come down with Ebola, I am sure that at least 6 to 12 people will come down with Ebola. Some of them will die and some will probably infect others.
To further demonstrate the total incompetence of the government, as of 8:30 PM EDT, October 2, 2014, the bedsheets that the infected person slept on over 4 days ago are still in the apartment where he slept! Today, CNN showed someone in street clothes “disinfecting” the sidewalk where Thomas Eric Duncan vomited. We were told that the government was ready. Guess what? Just like with hurricane Katrina, tropical storm Sandy, and numerous other events, the government was not, and is not, ready to protect the citizens.
I hope all of you morons who believe in socialism and communism take note. I hope you really believe the government and Obama will protect and shield you. I know they won’t. But, as the shit hits the fan, I won’t be joining you in hoping for salvation by government. Good luck. I’m glad you won’t be my problems.
We now know that Thomas Eric Duncan came to the United States with Ebola and he may have caused a major epidemic in the United States. Were we, as Americans, just unlucky, or was this a deliberate plot by Duncan to get treatment, no matter what the cost to other people? We now know that he lied at the airport in Liberia when he filled out a health questionnaire. It asked if he had had contact with anyone who had Ebola. He answered NO. But, we know that he helped a pregnant woman who had Ebola a few days before he left Liberia. She died. So, he lied on the document. Did he do that because he knew that he would probably get Ebola and that he would not get adequate (or any) treatment in Liberia and therefore went to the United States where he knew that he would get world class treatment? (Of course, the total incompetency of the CDC and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas were things that he could not have envisioned.)
I suspect this is a highly likely scenario. And, now he may have infected as many as 100 other people, although my personal opinion is that he will only have infected about 8 to 10 people. How many of them will die? How many of them will infect others? And, perhaps more importantly, how many other people from West Africa who can afford a plane ticket to a first world nation will lie to get on a plane and subject thousands, or even millions, of innocents to death by Ebola?
Who would have thought that a city in the center of America would become the poster child for Muslims behaving badly? But, it has. One recent example is the Muslim who claimed to represent ISIS and who told a co-worker that he was going to behead her. Why? Because that is what Muslims do to Christians. And, we also have the Muslim who did behead a worker and tried to behead another worker. Why did he do it? He stated that he hated white people and that he deserved a raise at work and felt oppressed. While he did not specifically mention terrorism or Islam as his motivation, we all know that it is Muslims, almost exclusively, who behead people in the 21st century. Also, his Facebook page had images of Osama bin Laden and a video of a beheading on it. So, while the authorities may only claim that this was workplace violence and not terrorism, it should be considered as inspired by Islam. I guess authorities would say he “went postal.” I have written before that we should add a new term to the lexicon, “going Muslim”, that could cover some of the bad behavior committed by Muslims whenever they get upset or are offended.
Islam is filled with barbaric 7th century punishments like beheading, stoning, lashing, and chopping off opposite hands and feet. And, in case you think this is just a technicality of sharia law and that it is not really applied in today’s world, Saudi Arabia beheaded at least 8 people in August alone for such heinous crimes as drug smuggling, sorcery, adultery, and apostasy according to the United Nations. Iran sentenced 6 young people to 6 months in jail and 91 lashes each for recording a video in which they danced to “Happy”, the Pharrell Williams song. The person who recorded the video, which went viral on YouTube, was sentenced to 1 year and 91 lashes. The sentences were suspended after world-wide outrage against the Mullacracy. Adulterers are regularly stoned to death in Pakistan.
So, we know that beheading is not limited to the Islamic State; it is well established as a preferred way for a Muslim to kill someone. Other modern examples of Muslims beheading people include the 2009 case of the “moderate” Muslim in New York who beheaded his wife a week after she filed for divorce. According to an article on CNN.com, Muzzammil Hassan
“…launched network — billed as the first English-language cable channel targeting Muslims inside the United States — in 2004. At the time, Hassan said he hoped the network would balance negative portrayals of Muslims following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.”
Oops! I guess that did not work out too well.
Now, if we go back to 2005, we have the case where a Muslim convert named Joel Hinrichs III blew himself up outside of an Oklahoma State football game in Norman Oklahoma with a bomb he made with TATP, known to any good Muslim bomb maker as “mother of Satan”. It was while training to make a bomb with TATP (triacetone triperoxide) that Abu Hamza al-Masri blew off both hands and one eye. (Al-Masri maintains that he was injured by a landmine in Afghanistan, but Omar Nasiri’s book “Inside the Jihad: My Life with Al Qaeda” states that he got injured in a TATP bomb-making training accident.) Hinrichs attended the same mosque that Zacharias Moussaoui attended. (Moussaoui was supposed to be on one of the 911 planes but did not make the flight.) Of course, this was officially ruled a “suicide” by a misguided 21 year old youth. But, he had tried to get into the stadium with his backpack bomb and was refused entry. According to the above article, he also had tried to buy fertilizer, which is a common ingredient for large improvised explosives, but was refused by the feed store clerk. Clearly, if he had gotten into the stadium, which held over 80,000 people for that game, more people would remember this bombing.
Finally, we have the Oklahoma City bombing. Of course, the Clinton government did not want any Muslims associated with that bombing, so when they had two useful idiot white guys who proudly claimed that they did the job by themselves, that was the official story that the Clinton administration and law enforcement gave the world. But, Jayna Davis, an investigative reporter for KFOR-TV of Oklahoma City, documented the connection of Muslims from Iraq and the Philippines to the bomb plot. Most people remember that law enforcement was searching for “John Doe #2″, “the third terrorist”, who was described as being of “Middle Eastern decent”. He turned out to be Hussain Al-Hussaini according to Jayna Davis in her book “The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing.” In this excellently documented and researched book, she presents voluminous evidence that clearly show a Muslim connection to the bombing. In fact, when she named Al-Hussaini, he sued her for defamation of character. That lawsuit allowed Davis to obtain depositions and documentation for the law suit. When the judge saw all of the evidence against Al-Hussaini, he dismissed the case.
Al-Hussaini was, supposedly, a refugee from Iraq. According to the book, he had a tatoo indicating that he was a member of Sadam Hussein’s Republican Guard. I personally believe that one of the unreported reasons for the 2003 war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein was payback for this attack. (Incidently, and interestingly, Al-Hussaini was also working at Boston’s Logan airport on 9/11/2001 according to the book.)
Further indications of a Muslim connection to the Oklahoma City bombing is the fact that Terry Nichols went to the Philippines at least 5 times in the early to mid 1990’s. (1) He came home early and unexpectedly from one trip in January 1995 stating: “Somebody could get killed down there.” (2) According to Davis, he was visiting with Ramzi Yousef to learn how to make bombs and there was an explosion and fire in Yousef’s apartment. (Ramzi Yousef was the bomb maker for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and he is the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 911 plot.)
So, perhaps the government should be watching the mosques and Muslims in Oklahoma much more closely than they are.
1. The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, p 243
2. The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, p 247
Lets face it, we need more brutal dictators to rule the Muslim world. While I supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein because he did support al Qaeda, almost certainly had chemical weapons, and was probably involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, I did not support war efforts once he was gone. When George Bush infamously announced “Mission Accomplished” on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, that is where we should have left the Middle East. The mission was accomplished; Saddam Hussein was out of office and his military machine was dismantled.
But, we then got into the absolute insanity of trying to bring liberal democracy to a majority Muslim nation. That is insane! Islam and liberal democracy are completely incompatible. Islam is based on the Koran and Sharia law. The Koran was written over 1300 years ago by ignorant barbarians. Mohammad, if he ever existed, was an insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile and Allah was his sock-puppet. The “teachings” of the Koran and Sharia law have no place in the modern, civilized (relatively, at least) world. The fact of the matter is that the only thing Muslims understand is strength. Without strength, their “society” breaks down to war between various factions; the Sunni hate the Shia, the Shia hate the Kurds, and everybody hates the Suffis. (To paraphrase Tom Lehrer’s “National Brotherhood Week” song.)
Thus, before our ill-fated overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a fairly quiet country. Sure, Saddam imprisoned a lot of people and gassed some more, but I think that the majority of today’s Iraqi citizens would say that life was better before 2003. The same is true of life in Libya. While Gadaffi was a weird and wacky dictator, at least he kept a reign on the various factions of Islam in Libya. (In fact, he was trying to unite Africa, financially, against the West in an economic sense and this may have been why we decided to kill him off. We must remember that he gave up his weapons of mass destruction after he saw what we did to Hussein. Also, he was actually using his vast wealth to try to make the lives of many Libyans better, although this story has not been widely reported in the West and I have not had enough time to research it, so I don’t know how true it is. But, I do know that Libya was a far more peaceful place while Gadaffi was alive.)
Now, lets look at Egypt. Egypt was ruled sith an iron fist by Mubarak. He was widely hated, and one of his enemies was Barack Obama. Obama wanted him out and the Muslim Brotherhood brought into power in his place. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the Muslim Brotherhood realizes that it is a terrorist organization, just like the organizations affiliated with it such as Hamas, al Qaeda, CAIR, AL-Nusra, and others. As soon as Egyptians threw out Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood took over, Christians were persecuted and killed and Christian churches were burned down. Egypt became an Islamic hell-hole. Fortunately, the military leader, Al-Sissi, took over. Since then, Egypt has been somewhat pacified, although it is certainly not a place where I would ever consider going.
So, now we see the situation in Syria. Over a year ago, Obama said that Al-Assad “must go”. But, he wisely did nothing to displace him. (Note I said wisely; that may be the only time you hear me praise Obama.) Now, we are acting as his air force to bomb the Islamic State. Of course, bombing will not do much without boots on the ground. And, because the Islamic State represents a fairly true implementation of Islam and Sharia law, and there are obviously tens of millions of Muslims that are behind ISIS, at least in spirit, we will not be getting anything more than tepid support from majority Muslim nations.
The only lasting solution to the problem of Islam will require a complete re-education of Muslims. Given that hundreds of millions of Muslims are indoctrinated with Islam from birth, that is highly unlikely to happen in the next hundred years. True, we were able to force the “re-education” of Japanese after WWII so that they no longer believed that the emperor was a god, but we had to use 2 atomic bombs to accomplish that re-education, and we only had a few tens of millions of people that had to be re-educated. Today, the most popular Muslim cleric, Mohammad Al-Areefi (1), has almost 10 million twitter followers and his speeches are totally supportive of the Islamic State. That is more than twice as many followers as the Pope. So, we have a problem. And, until the government and the media admits that the problem IS Islam, we cannot hope to win this war. So, why did we waste over $3,000,000,000,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and why are we continuing to waste our national treasure, both in terms of money and lives, fighting wars in Muslim countries?
1. Thanks to Sam Harris for that factoid call out.
This story must be about the worst nightmare that CNN could imagine. They constantly harp on situations where black (and to their mind innocent) people are shot. They constantly harp on how ISIS may stage attacks on the homeland. They constantly dwell on gun control. (In fact, I suspect Piers Morgan’s fixation on gun possession in America is what finally got him fired.) Finally, we have an atrocious crime that involves all three of their pet causes. If you tune to CNN, it must be wall to wall coverage, right? Wrong. Crickets! In fact, even though I tweeted @CNNbrk a story that covered the incident Friday morning (and they obviously already knew about it), I did not hear them mention it until some time in the late afternoon. (I may have missed an earlier mention, but it certainly was not the main story of the day.) There has been virtually no coverage since then on CNN, at least not that I have seen, even though this is a major story. It could well be the tip of the spear as we see more and more atrocities committed by Muslims in the civilized world.
Why is CNN not covering this? Well, for one thing, I am sure they were hoping that the first atrocity committed by a Muslim after we expanded our stupid war into Syria would be performed by a jihadist returning from the battle field in Iraq and Syria. And, hopefully, a white jihadist. (I suspect they would consider it best if the jihadist was a blue-eyed blonde convert from Sweden, or something like that.) But, no, it was a black man. And, to add insult to that injury, the barbarian was brought down by an armed citizen before he could behead others. (Unfortunately, he did stab another woman, but at least he was shot before he beheaded her and could kill others.) It is well established that armed citizens stop many crimes, and when the right of citizens to arm themselves is restricted by the government, crime goes up. Of course, I don’t think I have ever heard that on CNN.
Wow, just as I am finishing this article, CNN is mentioning the crime. We’ll see if they go to wall to wall coverage. I am not holding my breath.
Here is a simple chart from Jihad Watch that clearly shows that the Islamic State follows Islam closely. In fact, perhaps this is why we don’t hear terrorist organizations like CAIR, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and hundreds of millions of Muslims speaking out against them. Sure, the media managed to find a few marginalized imams and other Muslims that claim that the Islamic State is not following Islam, but the silence from hundreds of millions of Muslims is deafening. (CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land terrorism financing conviction. Additionally, their executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth branch of CAIR recently stated: “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.” Perhaps that sentiment is why Muslims refuse to integrate into civilized society wherever they immigrate. These facts, and many other like them, make CAIR a terrorist organization in my mind, and our government should ban it and stop coddling them and seeking their advice. )
We also see that many Muslim countries are really only giving half-hearted support to our new war on Islam. I wonder why? Could it be Islam? Could it be Sharia law? Could it be the fact that hundreds of millions of Muslims want the Caliphate restored and to live in it under Sharia law?
Right now, Great Britain is debating whether they will even lend support to the air war against the Islamic State. It is interesting to note that Mohammad has been the most popular baby name in each of the last few years in London, and that twice as many British Muslims fight for ISIS than in the British armed forces! (Of course, no western military should allow Muslims to join for obvious reasons. We’ve already seen the results of having Muslims in the military in Fort Hood and other locations.)
I have said many times that I am sick and tired of hearing the old, and obviously false, platitude that Islam is a religion of peace. It may be a religion of pieces, but it never was, and never will be, a religion of peace. Islam divides the world into two houses; Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb. Those phrases roughly translate into the house of peace and the house of war. That may be where the bit about peace came from, but that is, obviously, only half of the story. Sure, if all of the world is conquered by Islam (and only one particular variant), then there will be peace. Of course, that can never happen.
Most people that know anything about Islam realize that there are two basic versions; Shi’a, and Sunni. But, there are actually many other smaller subdivisions of Islam including Wahabi (popular in Saudi Arabia), Alawism (popular in Syria), Sufism, and many others. And, in general, these groups do not agree on what Islam is and they often consider the other sects to not even be Muslims. For example, according to a 2012 Pew poll, in Egypt, the largest Muslim nation in the Arab world, 53% of Muslims say that Shi’a Muslims are not really Muslims. Most Arabs are Sunni Muslims. Thus, if Egypt was to develop a caliphate, many of the residents of Iraq, Syria, and most of the people in Iran would have the choice of converting to Sunni Islam or being put to death; usually by having their heads cut off, since that is the preferred method for getting rid of apostates in the Koran. For example, Koran 8:12 states:
[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”
Thus, we clearly see that the Koran instructs Muslims to behead unbelievers. So, why the fuss about members of the Islamic State beheading unbelievers? This is part of the ideology of Islam, and you cannot separate the ideology from the “religion”. They are one and the same.
Indeed, a recent Pew poll found that a majority of most Muslims surveyed believe that there is only one interpretation of Islam, as shown in the following graphic.
The obvious problem is that while most Muslims believe that there is only one true Islam, each sect needs to kill members of the other sects because they are obviously apostates since there is only one true Islam, and their “true” Islam is wrong!
I also heard people complaining about members of the Islamic State raping women, selling them into slavery, or taking them as wives after they conquered an area. Why the fuss? The Koran and Hadith are very clear on this point in many verses. Take the following example.
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.
When the Koran frequently refers to “those your right hand posses” it is referring to slave women. Slaves are perfectly acceptable in Islam. In fact, Mohammad himself had a slave girl named Mariyam who was a Christian.
Another interesting fact is that it was Muslim traders who brought many of the black slaves to the United States in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century. Given this fact, you really have to wonder why so many African Americans are drawn to Islam.
If you still think that Islam does not condone making slaves of captured women and raping them at will, then read the following from one of the Hadith. (The Hadith is a collection of stories and sayings that go along with the Koran in defining the ideology and even law (Sharia) that is the very basis of Islam.) This is from Abu Dawud, Volume 2, #2150.
The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess”
So, again I ask, why are we being told that ISIS is not Islamic and that their behavior violates the tenets of Islam? They seem to be following it to the letter.
Another thing that I often hear is that most Muslims , like most Christians, don’t really take their religion seriously and don’t believe the barbaric garbage that fills the Koran and Hadith. But, there are some pesky facts that would tend to indicate that is just not true. While I don’t think most Christians really believe that someone was born of a virgin or arose from the dead (although they will say they do “to get along”), in many Muslim majority nations, the Muslims do take their religion seriously. In a recent Pew poll, a startling percentage of the Muslims polled stated that religion is very important in their lives.
And, most Muslims in the same survey said that they believed that the Koran was the exact word of God.
The biggest problem with Islam is that it is not just a religion like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or other mainstream religions. It is also a system of laws and government called Sharia that is based on the ideology of Islam. And, in a huge percentage of Muslim nations, the Muslim citizens favor making Sharia the law of the land. (In many cases even believing that non-Muslims should also be subject to Sharia law.) This is, after all, what the Taliban and ISIS have done. It is what we see in other Islamic Hell-holes like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. Now, ISIS simply wants to re-establish the caliphate which is central to Islam. The following graph from a recent Pew poll shows the percentage of Muslims that favor making Sharia law the law of the land.
And, what happens when Sharia law becomes the law of the land? Well, of course, you end up with a nation ruled by barbaric 7th century rules and procedures. For example, Sharia calls for stoning to death as a penalty for adultery, and, not surprisingly, you see that atrocity supported by a huge number of Muslims as the following graph from a recent Pew poll shows.
So, Obama tells us that we need to attack the ideology of ISIS. In truth, that means that we need to attack Islam. We need to admit that ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM. We need to realize that we are not going to destroy Islam with airstrikes. We are not even going to destroy the worldwide plague known as Islam with “boots on the ground.” And, we should not be surprised when most Muslim nations don’t show much real enthusiasm for destroying the Islamic State. After all, it represents the true Islam that many want to see.
We can’t even begin to destroy the enemy until we tie the ideology that our “leaders” keep insisting is barbaric to Islam. The two are inseparable. Most Muslims are Muslims because of the accident of their birth, just like most Christians are Christians by the accident of their birth. Children are indoctrinated (brainwashed) with a particular religious ideology almost from birth. By the time they are old enough to think for themselves, the damage has already been done in most cases. They believe the myths, lies, and legends they have been taught by their parents and their society and it is rare, indeed, when someone uses some critical thinking and realizes that their religion is false and what they have been indoctrinated to believe is not true.
The following graphic from that recent Pew poll clearly shows the strength of religious indoctrination in Muslims.
If Hitler had declared himself a god and claimed that Nazism was a religion, today, I’m not sure if our insane political correctness would not allow us to defeat this evil. I’m afraid that it may be many hundreds of years before we can defeat Islam. We may not have that much time.
(1) http://my.telegraph.co.uk/abdulmuhd/amuhd/1476/moderate-islam-is-an-insult-to-islam-the-cultural-muslim/ – See more at: http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/#sthash.lzM9vsd0.dpuf