Posts Tagged ‘terrorism’

Real World Graduation: Question 24

by Edward Posted: Sunday, 4/1/2018

RealWorldGraduation_Question_24   <– PDF

Why do famous Islamic leaders such as Osama bin Laden and Yassir Arafat never volunteer to personally undertake suicide bomber missions?

a) They are well educated in the will of Allah, and therefore are more valuable to Allah directing the work of others.

b) They serve as an inspiration to all Moslems, and therefore it is important that they continue to sacrifice in this life for the spreading of Islam, rather than taking the easy way out by transferring immediately to paradise in a suicide bombing.

c) The leaders of Islam receive special revelation from Prophet Mohammed himself, and he told them that it is not their time yet.

d) They cannot remember which button to push.

e) The answer is some combination of a), b), and c).

(The answer is shown on p. 2 of the PDF.)

Tags: ,
Posted in critical thinking, Real World Graduation, terrorism | No Comments »

Barack H. Obama’s Legacy, Part 10

by Edward Posted: Monday, 8/21/2017

ObamaLegacyPart10   <– PDF

Continuing an analysis of Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy, it is obvious that he, like his predecessor Mr. Bush, failed to understand the source of “Islamic terrorism”.  Actually, it is worse than that.  At least Mr. Bush was willing to call it what it was: a certain branch of Islam that adheres to the original definition of ‘jihad’ as handed down by the Prophet Mohammed and his immediate successors.  That is, anyone who is not a particular type of devout Moslem has to be killed in the service of Allah.  Mr. Obama, sympathetic to Islam, and also convinced that America is first and foremost an oppressor and exploiter nation, declined to admit that the problem was even related to the Islamic religion.  Instead, he and the members of his administration referred to the work of al Qaeda and ISIS using euphemisms such as ‘workplace violence’, ‘personal issues’, ‘hate crimes’, or whatever he could get the compliant media to repeat.  He went so far at one point to deny that ISIS (which established an Islamic Caliphate) was even Islamic.

The incorrect policy pursued by Mr. Obama, imitating somewhat the policy of Mr. Bush, was to enlist the Arab nations in a coalition against the terrorist group. As expected, none of them did much.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not part of the solution to Islamic based terrorism. Saudi Arabia is the problem with Islamic terrorism.  The Saudi royal family maintains it power by allowing the Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam to control the subjects by a religious secret police that also controls the legal system and the education system.  (The Wahhabi’s prefer to be called Salafi.) The Saudi royal family supports and defends the Wahhabi sect as the de facto national religion and in return the Wahhabi’s educate the subjects that they are obligated to support the House of Saud.

The Wahhabi sect is the one branch of Islamic “theology” that has revived the original definition of ‘jihad’ as a viable political and religious system, hence the cause by Al Qaeda, ISIS, and many other like groups to enforce their objectives: a) kill as many Jewish people as possible; b) force the U. S. and other Western nations out of Middle Eastern affairs; c) establish a Caliphate to emulate the grand position once held by the early successors of the Prophet Mohammed (they had conquered vast tracts of the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Spain); and d) use the power of the Caliphate to kill anyone who embraced any other system of faith, starting with Christians. To do that, it is necessary for them to gain control of the Middle East using the terror methods to intimidate the Arab dictatorships, whom they accuse of being too closely aligned with the evil West.  It is notable that they have never attempted any terrorist activity inside Saudi Arabia: it is too soon to attack their current protectors.  The Saudi royal family claimed to be opposed to ISIS, but they never put a division in the field or a squadron in the air against them.

Mr. Obama’s policy of tilting toward Iran as an American favorite was poorly received in Saudi Arabia, as Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia regard each other as mortal enemies.  But the capitulation to Iran’s demands did not deter Mr. Obama from continuing to advocate for weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, as well as confirmations of security agreements made in the past.  Why did he do that?  Because ISIS had gotten stronger in late 2013 and early 2014, and started making noises that they might like to attack Saudi Arabia and remove the royal family.  The House of Saud realized there was no prospect of an alliance with ISIS so they turned to the U. S. for protection, and Mr. Obama came through.  He then began to attack ISIS positions and towns controlled by ISIS, and with it the inevitable collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties.  Those casualties only served ISIS’ propaganda methods, by which they induced more young impressionable idiots to join with them and fight against America, the great Christian evil.

In the end, Mr. Obama he affirmed that the Saudi policy of supporting Wahhabism has no opponents in his administration. On the other hand, his support for Iran and his reluctance to attack Syrian President Assad made the Saudi regime uneasy.  In other words, Mr. Obama acted against a traditional ally’s interests, while ingratiating himself with Iran, Saudi’s greatest enemy.  He dug himself deeper into the moral and political cesspool known as the Middle East, reducing the U. S. to a position of being hated as either an infidel or an unreliable enemy.  Meanwhile, Wahhabism continues to be endorsed by the Saudi regime.

Tags: ,
Posted in terrorism, Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Peace of Islam Visits the UK

by Edward Posted: Sunday, 6/4/2017

PeaceOfIslamVisitsUK   <– PDF

Mohammed’s Maggots continue their actions in Great Britain to promote peace and understanding according to the Islamic tradition.  On 22 March 2017, five people were killed in Westminster by a member of the Smiling Jihad who ran people over with a vehicle and then stabbed several others, causing six fatalities and 40 injuries.  On 22 May 2017, another loving Moslem set off a bomb at a concert venue in Manchester, killing 22 and injuring 120 or so.  On 3 Jun 2017 it was three of Allah’s loyal servants running people over on London Bridge and then stabbing whoever they could.  There were seven fatalities and 48 injured.  In response to this last attack, British Prime Minister Theresa May issued a statement (1.5 official harrumphs – serious indeed):

“Since the emergence of the threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism our country has made significant progress in disrupting plots and protecting the public. But it is time to say enough is enough.  We cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are.”

I am not a subject of the Queen, so it is not my place to criticize the U.K.’s policies.  But I can put this into an American perspective.  We have a certain number of Mohammed’s Maggots in the U.S., just as in the U. K., allowed here because our bureaucrats and politicians, like in the U. K., believe that all cultures and all religions are equal.  They have failed to realize that Islam was founded as a political religion, designed by Mohammed to get the Arab tribes to cast off their petty gods and idols, and give allegiance to one big idol (Allah), thus uniting the squabbling Arab tribes into a potent military and political force.  In the first century of its existence, the Arab tribes under the spell of Islam successfully conquered the entire Middle East except Persia, all of northern Africa, and what is now Spain (it was then called the Kingdom of the Visigoths).  Because our politicians regard all cultures and religions as equal, they are not willing to recognize that Islam is at war with both Western culture and any religion that is not Islamic.

Now that a certain number of them are in the U. S., our ever-spineless government officials treat the Islamic threat as just another series of crimes.  They are afraid to offend the Moslems; instead attempt to rationalize their actions.  Our former federal administration would not even admit the existence of Islamic “peace” until a month before it left office.  It is a true lesson of history: if you treat acts of war like crimes, you will lose the war.  The people of the U. K. have been victimized many times in recent years, and it is likely that we in the U. S. will eventually experience the same thing, given the pansy-style approach adopted by our leaders.  Sooner or later we Americans will corral our politicians and bureaucrats and demand of them, “When are you clowns going to get off your fat lazy lard-asses, and do your damn job to get Mohammed’s Maggots out of our country?”

When that day comes, the political and bureaucratic wimpy-boys will laugh in our faces, and tell us: a) there’s nothing to worry about; b) it is only a minor crime wave; c) Islamophobia is not a viable policy, and d) we can’t kill our way out of this problem. Their rationale is obvious: none of the attacks by Mohammed’s Maggots affect them personally.  Neither Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Paul Ryan or any of their family members will ever be affected by anything the enemy does, being protected at all times by a dozen guards with machine guns.  It is only the slime-slurping bottom-dwelling taxpayer lowlifes like us that get blown up, shot, stabbed, and run over by the true Islamic faithful.  Therefore, there is no cause for alarm.

I am pretty certain of how things will go up to that point. What happens when they laugh in our faces is too hard to predict.

Tags: ,
Posted in terrorism | No Comments »

The Islamic State Practices True Islam

by Edward Posted: Sunday, 9/28/2014

The Islamic State Practices True Islam  <– PDF version

We have all heard of the atrocities currently being committed by the Islamic State (IS), also called the Islamic State in Iraq (ISIS) — starving of children, mass murders, forcing people into the wilderness by the thousands, summary executions of enemy soldiers, public beheadings of Arab children and Western journalists, etc.  IS has demanded that all within the territory they control who are not with them is against them.  Their demands are simple: convert, pay tribute to IS, or be killed.  President Barack “I lied, period” Obama has responded by authorizing a limited series of airstrikes against ISIS, motivated mostly by public opinion than coherent policy.  Allegedly, the U. S. is being assisted by a few Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Jordan) in conducting these air missions.  The military experts inform us that this is neither a rational nor a victory-oriented strategy, but never mind that, Mr. Obama can now convincingly emulate President George W. Bush as a warrior upon “radical Islam”.  Both presidents have said that they believe Islam is a religion of peace, and that no true religion would conduct itself the way IS has done.  They are both wrong: Islam is the religion of peace only when they are in a tiny minority; as soon as they become a large minority or a majority, the true nature of Islam comes out: to spread the faith by force.

As proof, we need look no further than the policy of Abu Bekr, the first elected Caliph after the death of the Prophet Mohammed; he served as Caliph from the death of Mohammed in 632 until his assassination by poisoning in 634.  Abu Bekr was the father of Mohammed’s favorite wife, and was elected over Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali and an early dutiful convert, Omar.  The historian Henry Coppee has furnished us with the transition from Mohammed to Abu Bekr [1]:

“The venerable chief entered at once and with ardor upon the plans proposed by Mohammed.  He summoned the nation to arms, and after some desultory, or rather experimental efforts, he dispatched a large force to wrest Syria from the weak grasp of Heraclius.  His troops were full of ardor; the new war which was undertaken to propagate the faith would also enrich the faithful, by securing, as a result of victory, the costly spoils of the Lower Empire, of which the marvelous accounts hardly exceeded the marvelous reality.”

He followed the dictates of the Koran as laid out by the Prophet Mohammed [2]:

“If you be slain or die in defense of the religion of God, verily, pardon from God and mercy are better that what they heap together of worldly riches; and if you die or be slain, verily, unto God you shall be gathered.”

Here are Abu Bekr’s instructions to the army [3]:

“If God should give you the victory, do not abuse your advantages; and beware how you stain your swords in the blood of him who yields; neither touch the children, the women, or the infirm old men, that you may find among your enemies.  In your progress through the enemy’s lands, cut down no palms, or fruit trees, destroy not the products of the earth; ravage no fields; burn no dwellings; from the stores of your enemy, take only what you need for your own wants.  Let no destruction be made without necessity, but occupy the cities of the enemy, and if there be any that may serve as an asylum to your adversaries, them do you destroy.  Treat the prisoner, and him who renders himself to your mercy, with pity, as God shall do to you in your need, but trample down the proud and rebellious; nor fail to crush all who have broken the conditions imposed on them.  Let there be no perfidy or falsehood in your treaties with your enemies; be faithful in all things, proving yourselves upright and noble, and maintaining your word and promise truly.  Do not disturb the quiet of the monk or hermit, and destroy not their abodes, but inflict the rigors of death on all who shall refuse the conditions you would impose on them.”

What were these conditions?  Very simple, identical to what the new IS has proclaimed: “convert to Islam, pay tribute, or die by the sword.”

The new Islamic State, led by Abu Bekr al-Baghdadi (pseudonym or coincidence?), is in fact practicing the true form of Islam and spreading it in the way authorized by Mohammed and the successor caliphs.  This explains why every nation with a large Islamic population requires a government of tyranny and dictatorship: first, individual freedom is prohibited by Islam; and secondly, without a government of absolute powers, the nation would degenerate into perpetual chaos.  It is exactly as we have seen in Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Libya, and Iraq in recent years as soon as the secular dictators and absolute monarchs were overthrown or challenged.  It is a way of life in the weakly-governed Islamic portions of the Philippines, Sudan, and Somalia.  Why would our government try to deceive us into believing that Islam is a “religion of peace”?  Are they naive and gullible, or something worse?

[1]  Henry Coppee, The History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, Vol. 1, p. 44,  Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1881

[2]  The Koran, chap. 3.

[3]  ibid., Coppee, Vol. 1, pp. 46, 47

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in terrorism, war powers | No Comments »