Saturday, October 28, 2006

test post

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Should we make friends again with Saddam?

We have Saddam as our prisoner. It might have been better if the unit that captured him had reported that he was “shot while escaping” (One way or another). It might have been better yet if this war had never been entered into in the first place. It was obvious at the time to all independent minds without a personal, financial or political axe to grind that he had no WMD. It was, and is still, also obvious to all independent minds without a personal, financial or political axe to grind that the very idea of planting a liberal democracy in any Islamic country is nothing other than a pipe dream. And to those who tried to add a moral dimension by claiming Saddam was a tyrant who had to be removed, to lift the oppression from the Iraqi people: what business exactly was it of ours? All those Islamic countries with the appearance of democracy have exactly that – the appearance of it. There is no Islamic democracy. The very expression is an oxymoron. Islam and Democracy are incompatible. All Islamic countries are governed by strongmen, in one guise or another. Either that or they are out-and-out theocracies governed according to Sharia. Or both. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Whenever and wherever Muslims have had an opportunity to vote freely, they have always voted Islam. Always have, always will. Under Islamic conditions, democracy will never develop from the bottom up, and will never be permitted from the top down. It will certainly never be imposed by infidels. When President Bush stood on the deck of that aircraft carrier and triumphantly bragged “Mission accomplished”, I muttered to myself “Prelude over. Main score about to begin”. So it has proven.

So how could we make friends again with Saddam, and what would happen afterwards?

We will never again actually be friends with him; how could we be after killing the two apples of his eye, Qusay and Uday? However, we could reach an accommodation that both he and we could live with. Take him from custody – we have the power (the “right”? An irrelevant question – ignore it. In Islam, might is right.) to do so - then simply re-install him as President under our protection until his force levels are re-established. This would not take long: all the Baath Party operators and members would suddenly reappear, his army would flock to serve him, and it would take him no time at all to re-establish his Intelligence services because they have never gone away. We could arm him to the teeth and be generous to him with our own Intelligence capabilities

Then all we would have to do is keep the borders - particularly that with Iran - sealed while he re-established control over the entire country. It would be not a pretty sight. Then again, we don’t have to look. Saddam never was a friend of the jihadis and theocrats; had it ever been reported to him that his forces had captured bin Laden, for instance, he wouldn’t have just ordered his death: he would have gone to wherever bin Laden was being held and would have personally watched him die. He wouldn’t have wanted to read or hear bin Laden dead, he would have wanted to see bin Laden dead, or even do it himself. That was/is his style.

With control re-established, and the borders sealed so no jihadis could escape, he would hunt down and kill every last one of them. And the Shia wouldn’t trouble him for long. We could then withdraw all our forces from a now peaceful Iraq. From then on the only costs associated with Iraq would be those engendered by keeping Saddam armed to the teeth. Petty cash compared to current costs; and our young men and women would be out of there.

Could we trust him? No, not really, but what would it matter? He would now always know that we could remove him any time; invading and conquering Iraq never was a problem. It’s occupying it that is and would be a problem. In and out – easy.

But we would be deserting our friends? So what? Are Muslims ever really our friends? They are Muslims. We are infidels. Go read the Koran. We’re not talking morality here, only reality. The world wouldn’t like us for it? They don’t like us anyway.

But should we do it? There’s the rub. Saddam is an old man, and doesn’t have that many years left to live. As soon as he died a full-scale civil war would erupt. So what would have been gained by it (and in the meantime, the Muslim demographic bomb is growing here in the West)? No, let Saddam have his trial then be hanged, shot, beheaded – whatever. What business is it of ours what happens to him?

That only leaves us two alternatives.

We could do what the politicians say we should do. We could stay in place until the current government has built up the forces it needs to – attempt to - maintain itself in power. Then, when that has been achieved we would withdraw, having in the meantime spent hundreds of billions more dollars, pounds, euros, whatever; and probably thousands more deaths and maimings of our own young men and women. In the meantime, wannabe jihadis are flocking to Iraq from our own and other countries. And for what? So they can impose their own little bit of death on us. The survivors, once they’ve had some weapons training and combat experience - what do you think they do then? That’s right, they come back here, and to wherever else they came from. What do we suppose will happen once enough of them have done this? Back here in our own countries? That’s right. It’s not so much that our presence in Iraq is inspiring them to to do this. Our presence is giving them the opportunity, that’s all. They’re already well-inspired enough, but inspiration is worth nothing without opportunity and means. If we stay there long enough they will bring this war back home to us. And combat veterans all … on the loose in the midst of our civilian population (and in the meantime the Muslim demographic … you get the picture). A nightmare.

And once we decide that the government there is strong enough to survive on its own, and we withdraw our armies … what do you suppose is going to happen? That’s right. The army we’ve trained and armed will itself split along sectarian lines and there will be civil war (not just between the two halves af the army: the entire population will be engaged).

In both civil war situations I’ve described above, I’ve left out something very big. I’ll include it in this, our last option, but it does apply to the above two options too.

We could just withdraw our forces immediately. Result? Again, civil war. We all realise don’t we, that Iraq is going to have itself a civil war. That cannot be prevented no matter what we do. It’s only a matter of time. The best we can do either by using Saddam, or by supporting the present government, is to postpone it; and that only at great cost in lives and treasure (and combat experience for our own collections of wannabe jihadis). That’s the lives of our young men and women, and our treasure. It will happen. So why not just let them get on with it?

Pessimistic of me you say? No actually: optimistic. Que? Well, our politicians claim that if we aren’t there for the jihadis to fight, then the jihadis will do their fighting here. I disagree. They’ll be otherwise engaged. This is what I think will happen:

We withdraw all our forces now. Immediately civil war will commence. Kurdistan will declare itself independent and clear its territory of all non-Kurds. Turkey will invade Kurdistan. Turkish Kurds will engage in another insurrection, in support of their Kurdistani kin. Down south the Sunni and Shia will be hard at it. Iran will come in in support of the Shia, both in terms of men and weaponry. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries will not let that go unanswered, and will reciprocate in support of the Sunni. Jihadis will flock in from all over the world, to their preferred sides. Syria will come in in support of Iran. Jordan will get sucked in on the side of Saudi. The unsettled civil war in Lebanon will reignite. The decision-makers in Egypt will be bribed by Saudi to involve themselves to counter the manpower advantage Iran has. Libya, which has no great love for Egypt, will create mischief in Egypt’s back yard, in support of Syria. The Palestinians will start their own incipient civil war.

Everyone will be far too busy to bother about us … or Israel.

If we combine that with a simultaneous withdrawal from Afghanistan, first having armed Karzai and the Northern Alliance to the teeth, then civil war will break out there too, drawing in a large number of jihadis from Kashmir and Pakistan. Musharraf will have to redeploy a large part of his army from the Indian/Kashmir borders to the west of Pakistan to prevent spillover from Afghanistan. India might, with any luck, see that as an opportunity to retake and secure the whole of Kashmir; and deport its own Muslim population to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Pakistan will erupt internally and Musharraf will be toast. Pakistan will go more Islamist than the Islamists. That will give us all the excuse we need to eliminate Pakistan’s, and Iran’s, nuclear capabilities.

Our Muslim communities here in the West will erupt, giving us all the excuse we need to intern them preparatory to deportation. Then no more Muslims to ever enter the West again. Ever. We could allow in the non-Muslim minorities within the Ummah, in exchange for the Muslims we deport. Why let the Muslim demographic bomb grow?

While we are at it, we arm the Christian Falange in Lebanon with whatever it needs. Arm the East Timorese with whatever they need. Arm to the teeth all non-Muslim Indonesians. This would all cost little more than petty cash compared to what Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing us. And our young men and women would be out of there.

The Ummah would tear itself apart.

Outrageously immoral? Probably – but that is irrelevant. We are in a worldwide existential war with Islam. It being existential, we are entitled to use any and all means necessary to ensure our continued existence. The first, and ultimate moral act is to ensure your own survival. Islam has to be sorted out now. It has repeatedly assaulted the rest of the world for nearly 1500 years, and will continue to do so every time it feels strong enough; it’s about time it was brought to an end once and for all. This is an opportunity.

Ah … what about oil supplies you say? Well, we are going to have to learn to get by with much reduced and more expensive oil supplies sometime this century. We might as well bite the bullet now. That, along with dealing with Islam, is something we should not leave to our children.

Offensive? The truth often is.



Have you ever wondered why violence increases during Ramadan?, well Ramadan is the celebration of the Battle of Badr, so you see the "Holy" month is actually a celebration of death of the non believer, this concept has not changed since that Battle and Muslims around the world celebrate this event by attacking the non believer where ever they can albeit Iraq or Paris , I am not going to say anymore on the subject of violence in this post as I know there is ongoing work on this topic being carried out by Sir Henry, below is the Islamic view of the Battle, I am looking for a Quereshi perspective, if I find one I will post it...................Gandalf

With the Battle of Badr begans a remarkable Era in the history of Islam. The emigration of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) to Medina had turned the enemies from Mecca more hostile, and they constantly kept on thinking how they could overthrow him, and put an end to Islam. The battle of Badr was the most important among the Islamic battles of Destiny. For the first time the followers of the new faith were put into a serious test. Had victory been the lot of the pagan army while the Islamic forces were still at the beginning of their developments, the faith of Islam could have come to an end. This battle laid the foundation of the Islamic State and made out of the Muslims a force to be reckoned with by the dwellers of the Arabian Peninsula.
There is more on the battle here

Meanwhile from the Barnabus Fund(Thank you pd111)

Growing violence against Christians in Iraq

Thousands of frightened Iraqi Christians are fleeing Iraq, after an escalation in anti-Christian violence.

Several horrific attacks on Christians in the last three weeks have increased the fear amongst the Christian community. This appears to be a response to a call by militants for increased violence during the Islamic fasting month, Ramadan (which this year is 24th September – 23rd October).

On Wednesday October 4th an explosion was detonated in the mainly Christian district of Camp Sara, Baghdad. As people gathered round to help the wounded a second, larger explosion occurred. Nine Christians were killed in the attack, one of the largest deathtolls for a single attack. Observers say that the timing of the two consecutive bombs was similar to that of the attack on a church in Baghdad on 24th September.

On Tuesday 10th October Paulos Iskander, an Iraqi church minister, was abducted in Mosul. Iskander’s eldest son received a phone call from the kidnappers demanding a ransom of $250,000; the family, unable to raise this money, were able to negotiate for a ransom of $40,000, but the kidnappers also demanded that Iskander’s church publicly repudiate the remarks about Islam quoted by Pope Benedict XVI last month.

When Iskander’s family asked for proof that he was still alive the kidnappers held up the phone so that the sounds of crying and screaming could be heard. The family began to raise the ransom by asking churches and Christians in the area to help, and arranging several loans. Iskander’s church as well as several other churches placed 30 large posters around the city to distance themselves from the Pope’s words. However, before the ransom could be paid Iskander’s decapitated body was discovered on 12th October, dumped in an outlying suburb of Mosul. His body showed signs of torture, with cigarette burns, bullet holes and wounds from beatings.

His hands and legs had been severed, and arranged around his head which was placed on his chest. Iskander’s family later received a phone call from the kidnappers, who taunted them that Iskander “had a lot of blood in him”.

Sunday, October 15, 2006



By Professor Moshe Sharon

The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations - between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear.

There is no fundamental Islam.
Fundamentalism is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.

All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

The Language of Islam
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.

Driving Principles of Islam
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.
But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible
Let me explain the difference.
The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.
In Judaism, it leads to national salvation - not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.

The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other.

But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.

Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honoring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.

The Essence of Islam
Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.

Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions.

The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.
When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years - 640 - the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems
Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.

Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.
The Bible vs. the Koran
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?

Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].

Nevertheless, the laws a very clear - Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.

Islamic Rule and Jihad
What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

Two Houses
The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the house of non-Muslims, but the house of war. It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.

Islamic Law
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.

However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.

There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.

Islam and Territory
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.
This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear - territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.

The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.
Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important - this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

Islam and Peace
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.

With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.

Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace - you wouldn't believe what you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.

A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam? (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did.

Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, Remember the story of Hudaybiya. The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.

Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the peace agreement].
In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.

Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg.
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics.

Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing - we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.

Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.

What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?

Islamic Infiltration
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there's also war by infiltration.
One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war - inside the U.S.

End of Days
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah - peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed - a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.

Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.
I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.

Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.

The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him. Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.

Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?

The answer is, No. Not in the foreseeable future. What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.

But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.

And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Straight from the horse's mouth.

First I went here:

and collected this story:

mardi 10 octobre 2006 La Mecque 2006 : l'Islam déclare officiellement la guerre à toute la planète

Vous avez bien lu, et vous ne rêvez pas : l'islam vient d'appeler tout les musulmans à entrer en guerre contre l'Occident en particulier et le monde entier en général, rien que ça ! Tandis que certains quotidiens, comme "Aujourd'hui en France" c'est à dire "Le Parisien", font l'apologie du nombre croissant de Français éxécutant le pèlerinage à la Mecque, les prêches en ce lieu viennent d'atteindre un rare degré de violence, et c'est un euphémisme, ce sont de véritables déclarations de guerre, incitations à combattre et à détruire tous ce qui est non-musulman. Ce sont des centaines de milliers de musulmans qui se rendent à la Mecque, venus de tout les pays du monde, dont un grand nombre de France, près d'1 million de personnes au total. Alors que l'on veut nous faire entendre que l'Islam serait Amour, Paix et Tolérance, que les terroristes seraient hors l'Islam, en contradiction avec son esprit, l'Islam très officiel ainsi que l'élite des imams déclarent ni plus ni moins la guerre à l'ensemble du monde. L'Islam déclare sa solidarité inconditionnelle avec les terroristes, prie pour leur réussite, et exhorte les autres musulmans à faire ni plus ni moins que tout péter dans le monde ! Bien sûr l'ensemble de la presse internationale dhimmie, fera tout pour vous cacher cette sinistre réalité, mais il n'empêche que l'ensemble du monde islamique vient de déclarer la guerre au reste de la planète. La preuve ? Ce sont les prêches sans équivoque diffusés à la Mecque :

On assiste à ce genre de spectacle à la Mecque tandis qu'en France des centaines de mosquées sont en chantier sur tout le territoire et que les chrétiens se font massacrer un peu partout sur la planète.

Babel Fish Translation

In English:

Tuesday October 10, 2006 Mecque 2006: Islam declares officially the war with all planet

You read well, and you do not dream: Islam has just invited all the Moslems to enter in war against the Occident in particular and the whole world in general, only that! While certain daily newspapers, like "Today in France" i.e. "the Parisian one", defend the increasing number of French éxécutant the pilgrimage in Mecque, the sermons in this place have just reached a rare degree of violence, and it is an euphemism, they are true declarations of war, incentives to fight and destroy all what is not-Moslem. They are hundreds of thousands of Moslems who go to Mecque, come from all the country of the world, including one great number of France, nearly 1 million people on the whole. Whereas one wants to make us hear that Islam would be Amour, Paix and Tolerance, that the terrorists would be out Islam, in contradiction with its spirit, very official Islam as well as the elite of the Imam declare neither more nor less the war with the unit of the world. Islam declares its solidarity unconditional with the terrorists, requests for their success, and exhorts the other Moslems to be made neither more nor less than all péter in the world! Of course the whole of the international press dhimmy, will make very to hide you this disaster reality, but the fact remains that the whole of the Islamic world has just declared the war with the remainder of planet. The proof? They are the unambiguous sermons diffused in Mecque:

One attends this kind of spectacle in Mecque while in France of the hundreds of mosques are in building site on all the territory and that the Christians are made massacre a little everywhere on planet.

Watch the video to the end - you won't need words to comprehend it: you'll get the message, especially when you see who produced it.

Close enough (new readers: scroll down for enlightenment).

Straight from the Meccan horse's mouth.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Is Islam Waging War on the World? Part 2.

To new readers who have not been here before, this is not a stand-alone post. To properly understand it, you’ll need to scroll down (or go to the archive) and read my earlier post first.

I am late with this post; it should have been up Friday. I apologise for this. Early in the week I received a not overtly hostile e-mail warning me that I appeared to have “… attracted someone’s attention”. Next day my comms. went down. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. However, if it wasn’t coincidence that just means I’m on the right track. I have long had a personal motto: “The more they hammer you, the more you know you’re getting to them.”

I was remiss in last week’s post. I supplied misinformation, and I apologise for it. The information on which I based my graphs and conclusions actually understated the true situation. I had intended to tell you this right at the beginning, but I forgot. Go here to guage the full extent by which the situation is worse than I am able to tell you, and why:

In addition, what is reported in Religion of Peace’s site as one attack is frequently several that just happened to occur on the same day in approximately the same geographical location. For example, take the following entries from just last month:

9/27/06 Iraq Baghdad 8 42 Two separate Jihad attacks leave at least eight dead and over forty injured.

9/27/06 India Srinagar 2 0 Two cops are gunned down by the Mujahideen in separate attacks.

9/26/06 Iraq Baghdad 40 34 A series of bomb blasts and other Jihad attacks leave at least forty dead and dozens more in agony.

9/21/06 Iraq Baghdad 28 22 Six Jihad attacks leave two-dozen Iraqis dead and several more with burns and bullet wounds.

9/8/06 India Malegaon 31 297 Pakistani-backed militants are thought to be responsible for multiple bomb blasts that leave thirty-one dead and three-hundred injured.

So what is ostensibly five attacks, and listed as such, is at least fourteen different incidents, even if we take “a series” and “multiple” to mean only two each. And each of these incidents is presented in my work as being of the same status of individual “attack” as, for example this:

9/6/06 Pakistan Kaga 1 0 A 12-year-old girl is killed in her home by al-Qaeda backed militants.

or these:

9/12/06 Turkey Amed 10 13 An ultra-nationalist group with Islamist ties bombs a bus stop, killing ten Kurds, including seven children.

9/15/06 Iraq Mussayab 1 0 Islamic radicals kidnap a man, cut off his legs and head, then dump his body in the river.

This sort of thing is repeated throughout the five years of Religion of Peace’s files. No, I’m not criticising. So as you can see, the situation is far more serious than even I say. Bear that in mind when reading my work.

I left off my last post promising to return to a few items. First I mentioned returning to the issue of whether or not our occupation of Iraq is acting as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. A simple look at the numbers will answer that one.

First I made a graph of all the terror attacks month by month since the beginning of September 2001, and up to the end of September 2006 – 61 months. Then I wrote in the “Best Fit” (polynomial) line to make a bit of sense of the data (actually, Excel did this). You will notice that the best-fit line looks exponential. More later. Quite conclusive, I believe.

Graph 1

The “R-squared” number refers to the level of confidence in the accuracy of the best fit line. The nearer it is to one, the greater the level of confidence, provided nothing changes. As this is written on past data, and makes no projection, then nothing can change. A confidence level of 0.8376 is worth betting your house on, and on things like this, is about as near as you can get to a racing certainty. Even the statement that the sun will rise tomorrow wouldn’t rate a ‘1.0’, because who knows what may be hurtling straight at us at a fraction under the speed of light, from out there in the void? That’s my good friend Captain Paranoia speaking. I suppose the fact that you will one day be dead would score a ‘1.0’, but nothing else.

We invaded Iraq where the number 19 is on this graph; by 21 the whole thing was done and dusted and we were in occupation. You’ll notice that that’s about the time the whole thing started taking off, and has never looked back since. We had Afghanistan done and dusted by number 3 on the graph, but on average attacks dropped for a bit after that, and never averaged more than fifty per month again until after our occupation of Iraq. It’s not so much that it inspired them, I don’t think – inspiration isn’t worth a hill of beans if you don’t have the means to carry out the attacks – as that it gave them the means to do the things they do on what had previously been to them an unimaginable scale. On that point I don’t need to say any more than … is there anyone reading this who’s stupid enough to believe that Saddam didn’t have weapons, ammunition, explosives and cash caches spread all over Iraq? A big chunk of those caches are now distributed out to wherever they will do the most good (bad, from our point of view), and most likely plenty more where they came from. And not just in Iraq, I’m sure. I’ll return to this in a short while, in relation to Thailand (frankly, for Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair not to have realised this in advance has got to be considered an act of criminal idiocy. They should have used more appropriately-sized occupation armies right from the start). That is exactly what was planned in this country in 1940, in case Hitler ever succeeded in getting his armies across the Channel and occupying us. Did someone think Saddam wouldn’t have the same idea? He may be a Muslim. He may be a thug. But he is not and never has been stupid.

And as for the Koranic texts telling the jihadis that they must do the things they’re doing, just a few of the hundreds of available quotes ought to do the trick (perhaps our political and media elites might like to take a bit of time at these texts before again trying to tell us that Islam is a “Religion of Peace”?):

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43

You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73

Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:

Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....

And this one might explain a thing or two:

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4

(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25

"I have been ordered by Allah to fight and kill all mankind until they say, 'No God except Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah' (Hadith Sahih)."

I think we get the idea. Muslims like to quote the gentler Suras when engaging in d'awa and al-taqqiya, but what they don’t tell you is that the gentler Suras are what Mohammed used to say in his early days in Mecca, when he was weak. The Suras of the sword are what came later after he was well established and strong. Later Suras abrogate earlier ones (that too is said in the form of a sura; I just can’t find its direct reference just now. Input needed).

So yes, our invasion and occupation of Iraq, and their holy texts, both inspired them and gave them the means. And their holy (I don’t like to use that word for what is little more than violence-pornography) texts tell them they must do these things, right down to the beheadings,the limb amputations, and other tortures, including burning. You don’t hear from the msm about even a small fraction of the beheadings and throat-cuttings that are happening around the world wherever Islam is present in large numbers. I suggest you visit Religion of Peace and read their Attack files; all of them. Failing that, e-mail me and I’ll send you my “Specials” file, culled from RoP’s files (they gather the data, I only borrow and use it).

I promised to return to the issue of tactics, and the question of a “controlling Mind (organisation)”.

Take a look at this (ignore Thailand for the moment; that has become a different case since the coup on September 19th. Though it’s noticable that for a few days before and after the coup, attacks ceased. They have started up again since then, but all that does is provide evidence towards confirming the things I said about Thailand in my first post; as does the fact that the Muslim coup leader has started messing about with the Thai constitution):

Graph 2

Perhaps it’s just me, and my best friend Captain Paranoia, but that looks like an awful lot of co-ordination from around the world in the surges and lulls. And has anyone else noticed this about all their frenzied rampages when they’re protesting some imagined offence or other – an awful lot of protest placards appear as if from nowhere all written in English? And apparently professionally produced. In places where most people can’t even write their own language (and I know for a fact I’m not the only person who noticed the Pope protester who was waving his English language placard upside-down – somewhere in the Land of the Pure, I believe). … and all carrying basically the same words wherever in the world they are? Or is it just me? Oh well.

“Land of the Pure” is a literal translation of “Pakistan”.

None of this is proof of an organising mind, that’s for sure – but don’t step in it just the same.

And take a look at this nice little picture. Before reading what my best friend has to say about it, have a think: what do you see in it? It’s measured over the past five years, including Thailand, and the monthly attacks are averaged on an annual basis.

Graph 3

On the “All attacks” line, there is a slowing down of the rise just before the attacks started in Thailand, and continuing through the first two years of the Thailand insurgency until it was well-established and self-sustaining. Attacks in the rest of the world outside Iraq actually decreased over this time.

I know it’s probably only speculation based on paranoia, but if it is speculation it’s certainly an impressive piece of speculation, and if it’s paranoia it’s a cracker, but:

It looks an awful lot to me as if resources, including planning resources (and that’s where the controlling mind comes into the picture), were withdrawn from the rest of the world and diverted to Thailand to get the insurgency there started, then once that insurgency became self-sustaining, those resources were directed back to where they came from. As I said in my last post – the opening of another front.

This is a wider tactical move that may be repeated in the future. I suggest we – in reality me, I suppose – ought to keep a weather eye out for for another sustained slowing or even reduction in attacks outside Iraq. If this happens we ought to consider where yet another front might be about to be opened. Put bluntly: where is there a lot of Muslims where there is little or no trouble? Which region of what country? Anyone got any suggestions?

Everything I’ve done so far is based on the whole population of attacks and I’ve had no need to use statistics, or make projections. That is about to change. I’ve used the data from the past two years-worth of attacks for the projections that follow. They do not make comfortable viewing.

In the first graph, I’ve projected (well, Excel has; thank you Mr. Gates. You get a lot of stick, but you do do some good stuff) the number of attacks forward one year based on the number and pattern of attacks over the past two years.

Graph 4

As you can see, all the projections comprise an exponential curve (for now, ignore Thailand; I’ll return to it shortly), and every category of attacks I’ve defined (‘all’; ‘all excluding Iraq’, etc.) show a near doubling by this time next year; and acording to this picture, it looks like we can expect ‘all attacks’, including Iraq, to be somewhere around 250/month early in the new year. That’s near enough to check up on when the time comes. I’ll return to this picture after the end of January, then we can guage exactly how prescient I am. I need to be tested before you can decide how much you can rely on what I say. I’ll be honest.

You can note that the confidence level (R-squared) is 0.8421 for the ‘all attacks’ projection, with a steadily reducing confidence level down to the “all attacks excluding Iraq, Afghanistan and Thailand”, with even this last showing 0.6+ : a level it’s worth betting real money on.

Thailand. With Thailand, though the curve is still exponential, the level of confidence in the projection is only 0.3606. This well expresses the fluid situation in Thailand at the moment and the relatively low number of attacks in relation to the whole (the less data there is to work with, the less confidence we can have in the projection. This always applies) and gives a validity to the very notion of a level of confidence measure for predictions, i.e. the coup has thrown a spanner into the prediction machine, thus an appropriately low level of confidence in the projection. There was a pause in attacks for a few days before the coup, which continued for a few days afterwards. We’ll just have to keep an eye on there for now, though what is happening fits everything I suggested in my first post. I note that attacks have resumed, and since September 27th, when they properly started cranking up again after the coup, up until now, 1330 GMT today October 7th (11 days), there have been eleven attacks; an average of one a day. I reckon that Muslim general has about all the excuse he needs to secure his coup with a crackdown. Expect it any time soon.

Of course, confidence levels only have validity as long as there are no changes in basic conditions. For example, confidence levels would no longer apply if we pulled out of Iraq, or invaded … Algeria, say?

Those would be examples of changes in basic conditions, and would lead to a need for recalculation. No changes in basic conditions, and the predictions, with the appropriate confidence levels, are valid.

For my projections I’ve used data from only the past two years. It is very little different from the projections from five years’ data, with almost no difference in level of confidence (I’ve checked).

Now then: what do I mean when I say the curves of the projections are exponential. Well, look at the above graph: attacks were running at an average of about (very rough off-the-top-of-my-head working here) 80 attacks a month two years ago. It took two years for them to double (rather more than, actually) to something like 180 attacks a month. But if you look at the projection, the first doubling that took two years, is repeated again but this time in only one year. I might better illustrate by doing another projection, this time for two years ahead:

Graph 5

Now these projections are terrifying, and for all the measurement categories I’ve used except for the currently fluid Thailand, the confidence levels are very high – extremely high for ‘all attacks’.

It took two years from September 2004 to September 2006 for attacks to about double (more than), then in another year, they doubled again from that new already-doubled number, according to the projection. Then in another year, they (more than) double yet again. If we start at the original number, about 80 attacks a month, in two years it doubles, another one year and it will have (more than) quadrupled, another year after that and it will have increased by eight times ( I don’t know the word for that one). Barring some change in underlying factors this will keep happening.

That is what is meant by an exponential curve – an accelerating increase. I note the same pattern for all my measurement categories, though the multiplication factors are lower as we go down the range (where we are using less and less data to calculate with).

Send a copy of this and my previous blog post to your democratic – yes yes, I know – representative, now, wherever you are; whatever country. Our leaders need to understand that we really are in a World War that is developing at a terrifying rate. No, I am not a PC Marxoid peacenik: this is an existential war against an ideology of the type that had to be fought against Naziism, and needs to be addressed as such by our leaders. That includes addressing, by whatever means necessary, the fifth column that is living amongst us, and it’s PC supporters. I have no personal beef against individual Muslims, just as I’m sure my ancestors had no personal beef against individual Germans (I know this as a fact regarding both my father and grandfather), it’s just that, as in those days it was individual Germans who carried the Nazi virus inside their heads, so today it’s individual Muslims who carry the Islam virus inside their heads.

I hope that all made sense to you. Reading it through, it sounds to me like the ramblings of a drunk Captain Paranoia (I’m teetotal).

I was going to address the question of Saddam in this post. I’m already running two days late due to my … comms failure, so I’ll leave it until next time. I wont be addressing the numbers again, probably until the new year, unless sudden changes occur between now and then.

I have a question to put to the vote:

I am, by nature a soldier, or more precisely a warrior, not a spook, and I hate this anonymity stuff. In place of the woodcut of my esteemed (by me, anyway – now there was a man who knew what do do with his enemies: go ask a Spaniard. No, I don’t wish to give offence to people who are now good friends; only illustrating a point) historical namesake, should I post my picture? I have no problem with my enemies knowing exactly who I am as I am coming down the road. Oh indeed no! It also means my allies will know who I am. Would you like to be able to put a face to the name? Vote in the comments. I’ll abide by the majority.

And to all those who’ve sent me kind words by e-mail: thank you, it is much appreciated. And to those who’ve sent constructive criticism, thank you for that too; that too is much appreciated. I have so far received no hate-mail or death threats, but we can but live in hope.

All the numbers I used in my first post, and the graphs I produced from them, have been checked by a German from I know not where, and an academic from a prestigious American university. Both gave me a clean bill of health . Thank you both; you both know who you are. And a special thank you to the academic for the e-mail lesson in using Excel. A good bit of this post came from that lesson.

All the inferences I drew are, of course mine, as are all my conclusions. For these I take full responsibility.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006


This is a long article but well worth the read-click on title for full article
Thank you Ralph Zwier

Not what it was, but what it does
By Spengler

Regarding the cuisine of the southeastern United States, a local adage warns: "More important than what it is, is what it was." That applies to a stew that might include marsupials, but not to religion.

Critics of Islam quote the saber-rattling suras of the Koran and recount the history of Muslim violence, while apologists retort with peaceful-sounding suras and cite Christian misbehavior. Pope Benedict XVI's September 12 speech provoked a fruitless debate over the remarks of a 14th-century Byzantine emperor about the

evils that Mohammed had brought to the world. Nothing ever will
be learned, much less proved, by this tedious and sophomoric exercise. Gathering dust half-read on my desk are a number of books recounting the supposed evils of Islam - by Ba'at Yeor, Oriana Fallaci, Serge Trifkovic, and many others. There is not a speck of theological insight in the stack of them.

Western policy toward the Muslim world appears stupid and clumsy because its theological foundations are flawed. It is not what it is, nor what it was, but rather what it does that defines a religion: How does a faith address the paramount concern of human mortality, and what action does it require of its adherents? I addressed these issues under the title Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life (September 19), explaining that jihad does for Muslims precisely what Communion does for Christians. It is not a doctrine but a sacrament, that is, a holy act that transforms the actor.

Three years ago I reviewed in this space the only recent book on Islam that explained jihad within the religious life of the Muslim faith community, a collection of writings by the Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig, who died in 1929. [1] It is available only in German. Rosenzweig's understanding of Islam, to be sure, can be culled from his English-language writings, but a new English translation of his principal work last year was ignored entirely. [2]

Oddly, the US left and the neo-conservative right agree on method as well as outcome, and produce quite similar drivel. Professor Martha Nussbaum, a classicist, has written a new book on Hindu religious violence, as she wrote, "not only to present a case study in the threat to democracy from religious tension, not only to engage Americans in an informed dialogue about India, but also to defuse the inaccurate and unhelpful assumption that Islam is a global monolith bent on violence". That is a silly premise, for violence by other religious groups does not bear upon the accusation that Islam is inherently violent.

The neo-conservative Max Boot, an enthusiast of imperial small wars, wrote last week, "Religions are not monolithic. They have no fixed, eternal identity. Until the 18th century, Christianity was a militant faith whose adherents did not hesitate to kill 'heathens'. Throughout the Middle Ages, Islamic states usually offered greater tolerance to religious minorities and were more open to secular learning than their Christian neighbors." [3] Really? Is Boot talking about the Almohad Dynasty that conquered Spain in 1148 and offered the Jews conversion or death? Were the Almohads "more open to secular learning" than the contemporary Holy Roman emperor, Frederick II? The fellow deserves a D-minus in a freshman history course.