Victor Davis Hanson again makes some valid points.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Back to the Old 9/11 World
Victor Davis Hanson
8 Dec 2008

For three days, Islamist gunmen nearly shut down Mumbai, the financial center of India. The terrorists — Pakistani militants, according to Indian authorities — murdered almost 200 innocents and left hundreds of others wounded, giving reprieve only to hostages they thought were Muslims.

The timing of their assault seemed aimed for maximum shock value here in the U.S. — during the transference of American presidential power and amid a long U.S. holiday in which millions of Americans were glued to televised news.

The macabre killing spree was apparently part of a larger, though failed, effort to shoot or blow up a planned 5,000 civilians — especially Americans, Brits and Jews. The jihadists may have hoped that India would heed Islamist warnings to loosen its connections to Western finance and commerce, and pay better attention to Muslim grievances.

There are a number of things to take away from the Mumbai atrocities.

First was the welcome re-emergence of concerned discussion of the dangers of global Islamist violence. George Bush apparently was not fabricating a global terrorist bogeyman — as was sometimes alleged over the last years of calm — when he sought support for his war in Iraq and domestic security measures.

In fact, caricatured efforts like the Patriot Act, the FISA accords, the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, the fostering of Middle East constitutional government, and the killing of violent insurgents abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq might seem once again understandable in the context of preventing another major violent terrorist attack of the sort we just saw at Mumbai.

Second, in the fashion of the old post-9/11 apologists, we were lectured once again that global terrorism is not necessarily an Islamic phenomenon. Supposedly the poverty and mistreatment of India's Muslim minority, not jihadist ideology and hatred, better explain India's incessant sectarian violence. That theory of victimhood is no more convincing now than it was in 2001.

Transnational terrorism still remains mostly Islamist in nature. Very few impoverished Hindu, Christian or Sikh terrorists go abroad to murder civilians. Nor are the wretched poor of Brazil or Haiti organizing mass-murdering assaults against foreigners and Western iconic targets in their cities.

Third, the serial excuses of Pakistan are also beginning to wear thin. Hundreds of Indians have been killed by Pakistani terrorists, who have routinely attacked both foreigners and Christians in their own country. It is now over seven years since more than 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered on orders from terrorists now all but certainly in sanctuary in Pakistan — and whom we are still told cannot be extradited.

So despite billions of dollars in American military and financial assistance given to Pakistan, nothing really changes. When pressed to explain the apparent role of the Pakistani military or intelligence services in turning a blind eye to jihadists, the government — whether a Pervez Musharraf in uniform or now civilian President Asif Ali Zardari (formerly known as "Mr. Ten Percent" for allegations of graft) — still politely offers a variety of clichés.

The Pakistani borderlands are beyond the government's control. Pressuring the existing government for either more order or more democracy will lead only to worse alternatives — such as a takeover by fundamentalist clerics, authoritarian generals, or weak democrats whose plebiscites will ensure rule by popular fanatics. No Pakistani leader of any stripe ever quite takes responsibility of the government for the mayhem committed by its own citizens or foreigners on its soil.

Instead, there always seems an implied threat that it would be unwise to push too far a volatile Pakistan that possesses nuclear weapons, or whose fanaticism makes it immune from classical laws of nuclear deterrence, or whose poverty and mismanagement ensure that it simply cannot be expected to meet international norms of behavior.

Fourth, the problem of Pakistan and the Islamist terrorism that so frequently emanates from its soil will now be President-elect Obama's to deal with. He will have to decide whether George Bush's anti-terrorism architecture shredded the Constitution and should be repealed, or helped to keep us safe from attack for seven years, and thus should be maintained, if not strengthened.

Obama once advocated open intrusions into Pakistan in hot pursuit of terrorists, and will have to adjudicate whether such actions will more likely enrage nuclear Pakistan or finally eliminate the followers of Osama bin Laden. At the same time, Obama also must ponder whether he should continue our subsidized "alliance" with Pakistan.

Just as I didn't envy George Bush's lose/lose dilemma in dealing with Pakistan and global Islamic terrorism, so too I can only sympathize with President-elect Obama, who faces the same dismal choices.

Thomas Sowell reminds us of the consequences for a failure to heed the recent past...but will we? :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The Meaning of Mumbai
Thomas Sowell
9 Dec 2008

Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists at Guantanamo?

Maybe. But never underestimate partisan blindness in Washington or in the mainstream media where, if the Bush administration did it, then it must be wrong.

Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people. Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.

Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event-- the World Series, Christmas, New Year's, the Super Bowl-- was under the shadow of a fear that this was when the terrorists would strike again.

They didn't strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn't want to hit America again?

Could this have had anything to do with all the security precautions that liberals have been complaining about so bitterly, from the interception of international phone calls to forcing information out of captured terrorists?

Too many people refuse to acknowledge that benefits have costs, even if that cost means only having no more secrecy when making international phone calls than you have when sending e-mails, in a world where computer hackers abound. There are people who refuse to give up anything, even to save their own lives.

A very shrewd observer of the deterioration of Western societies, British writer Theodore Dalrymple, said: "This mental flabbiness is decadence, and at the same time a manifestation of the arrogant assumption that nothing can destroy us."

There are growing numbers of things that can destroy us. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than the United States has lasted, and yet it too was destroyed.

Millions of lives were blighted for centuries thereafter, because the barbarians who destroyed Rome were incapable of replacing it with anything at all comparable. Neither are those who threaten to destroy the United States today.

The destruction of the United States will not require enough nuclear bombs to annihilate cities and towns across America. After all, the nuclear destruction of just two cities was enough to force Japan to surrender-- and the Japanese had far more willingness to fight and die than most Americans have today.

How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?

Neither Barack Obama nor those with whom he will be surrounded in Washington show any signs of being serious about forestalling such a terrible choice by taking any action with any realistic chance of preventing a nuclear Iran.

Once suicidal fanatics have nuclear bombs, that is the point of no return. We, our children and our grandchildren will live at the mercy of the merciless, who have a track record of sadism.

There are no concessions we can make that will buy off hate-filled terrorists. What they want-- what they must have for their own self-respect, in a world where they suffer the humiliation of being visibly centuries behind the West in so many ways-- is our being brought down in humiliation, including self-humiliation.

Even killing us will not be enough, just as killing Jews was not enough for the Nazis, who first had to subject them to soul-scarring humiliations and dehumanization in their death camps.

This kind of hatred may not be familiar to most Americans but what happened on 9/11 should give us a clue-- and a warning.

The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings could not have been bought off by any concessions, not even the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in bailout money today.

They want our soul-- and if they are willing to die and we are not, they will get it.

Still Asleep After Mumbai
 

I hope Mr. Pipes is wrong in his conclusion, but the evidence does seem to suggest he is correct:

"What finally will rouse Westerners from their stupor, to name the enemy and fight the war to victory? Only one thing seems likely: massive deaths, say 100,000 casualties in a single WMD attack. Short of that, it appears, much of the West, contently deploying defensive measures against fancifully-described "activists," will gently slumber on."

Perhaps this is this how the ITs view the West in general? :rolleyes:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Here's an interesting piece to ponder along those lines from the latest Pravda on the Hudson.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Hidden Travels of the Atomic Bomb
WILLIAM J. BROAD, NYT
9 Dec 2008

In 1945, after the atomic destruction of two Japanese cities, J. Robert Oppenheimer expressed foreboding about the spread of nuclear arms.

“They are not too hard to make,” he told his colleagues on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, N.M. “They will be universal if people wish to make them universal.”

That sensibility, born where the atomic bomb itself was born, grew into a theory of technological inevitability. Because the laws of physics are universal, the theory went, it was just a matter of time before other bright minds and determined states joined the club. A corollary was that trying to stop proliferation was quite difficult if not futile.

But nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth. In the six decades since Oppenheimer’s warning, the nuclear club has grown to only nine members. What accounts for the slow spread? Can anything be done to reduce it further? Is there a chance for an atomic future that is brighter than the one Oppenheimer foresaw?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/sc...09bomb.html?em

Yes!
 

We are not at war with Islam, It is at war with US. Certainly a war that needs to be redefined. Blitz

Guess we aren't...anymore.

Obama declares US not at war with Islam
Tom Raum, AP, 6 Apr 2009

"Let me say this as clearly as I can," Obama said. "The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical ... in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject."

The U.S. president is trying to mend fences with a Muslim world that felt it had been blamed by America for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090406/...pr_wh/eu_obama

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Briefing
 

Recently sat in on a briefing where this issue was the topic. The speaker was Stephen Coughlin (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ring-83234302/). I got these points out of his brief:

- Moslem Brotherhood and other groups specifically state how to fight war and how they intend to win
- They will make temporary accomodation, lie, kill, and use our culture against us, so that we are destroyed from within
- That they intend to use Sharia Law to spread their message and their own law system through madrassas and mosques the world over
- That the US and Western world are too politically correct to admit any of these things and that already Sharia Law is starting to get into our systems of laws (really bad in Europe already)
- That we have to understand their playbook (written by a Pakistani General Officer)- since it is basically their order of battle
- That PC'ness prevents us from understanding the enemy

There was a heated debate as international officers and some with long periods of time living in the Middle East took issue with some of his assertions. My personal opinion was that he seemed to be an advocate- and an especially emotional one at that- instead of an objective observer. He reminded me of a Fundamentalist preacher trying to convert everyone.

But, it didn't, for me, discount all that he said. But, the debate is still on: to what extent are our foreign policy problems within the Middle East connected to the Moslem faith? If they are greater than our politicians will admit, what can we do about it? What is the overall conclusion- if this is true (that Islam has de facto declared war on the Western world)?

There are Moslem officers from several countries in U.S. Army schools all over the U.S. Are they all in a period of "temporary accomodation"? If they are, they wouldn't admit it. Does this all sound too "conspiratorial"? To me it many times does. We might be attributing more coordination and focus than these groups really have.

I once likened the fight "over there" to one of having a Southern U.S. town occupied by Moslem troops. I am sure the Southern Baptists would take pride- if they weren't outright supporting- in "Red Dawn"-type insurgent operations against the occupiers. I have to figure it is the same over there. At the end of the day- they are prideful of their tribe, religion, town, family, etc.- just as we would be here with occupiers in our midst. I'm not sure that translates into a worldwide conspiracy to force everyone to become Muslim. But I'm not sure if anyone has the true % of the Moslem faithful who DO believe what the Moslem Brotherhood believes...

Are we at war with Islam?
 

Does a gorilla have hair on it?

Said another way, Does a cat have climbing gear?

I can't remember where I ran across these videos, but they are both definitely worth watching. The first is from Hannity's show about Al Queda training facilities right here in the US - one not 2 hours from where I live in Nashville. http://tinyurl.com/bzcbm2

The second is a bit longer, but made by a moderate Muslim about the Islamic plan for taking over a given society. It's entitled, "The Third Jihad". You can see it at http://blip.tv/file/1382254/

You gentlemen crack me up sometimes. Pres Bush said the exact same thing on many occassions. Anymore? When we were under Pres Bush?
:munchin

You mean before we couldn't call them terrorists, didn't think about releasing Gitmo detainees in the US, figured that anyone who took up arms against us was our enemy, adopted a policy of reducing our ballistic missile defense in response to a ballistic threat from the Iranians and NKs, treated our allies poorly and our enemies with respect, bowed to foreign potentates, sat around with our thumbs us our collective asses while a bunch of savages playing pirates held a US merchant marine skipper hostage, that sort of bad old days?:rolleyes:

TR

President Bush repeatedly said we were at 'war with radical Islam.'

O-bee, on the other hand, has slyly hinted that although his predecessor had engaged in a war with Islam, he -- Barack Hussein Obama, as he was introduced to Muslim audiences everywhere during his recent trip, using his middle name in a way that brings instant attacks on those who dare do so here in our 'open' melting pot of a society -- would never let such a travesty happen again.

Now what are we to make of that?

And as VDH explains:*

...according to all four recognized schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity — until "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah" (Koran 8:39). In its entry on jihad, the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam simply states:

The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.

Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, the vast majority of the ulema agree that Koran 9:5, famously known as ayat al-saif — the "sword verse" — has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses.

The obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's dichotomized worldview that pits Dar al-Islam (the "realm of submission," i.e., the Islamic world), against Dar al-Harb (the "realm of war," i.e., the non-Islamic world) until the former subsumes the latter. Internationally renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) articulates this division thusly: "In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups [specifically Christianity and Judaism] did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations."

This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca, ten years is, theoretically, the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels. Based on Muhammad's example of breaking the treaty after two years (by citing a Quraish infraction), the sole function of the "peace treaty" (or hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before going on the offensive once more. Incidentally, according to a canonical hadith, Muhammad said, "If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath." The prophet further encouraged Muslims to do the same: "If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."

After negotiating a peace treaty criticized by Muslims as conceding too much to Israel, former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat, speaking to Muslims in a mosque and off the record, justified his actions by saying, "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca." In other words, like his prophet, the "moderate" Arafat was giving his word only to annul it once "something else better" came along — that is, once Palestinians became strong enough to renew the offensive.

Most recently, a new Islamic group associated with Hamas called Jaysh al-Umma (Islam's army) stated clearly, "Muslims all over the world are obliged to fight the Israelis and the infidels until only Islam rules the earth." Realizing their slip, they quickly clarified: "We say that the world will not live in peace as long as the blood of Muslims continues to be shed." Which is it — until Muslim blood stops being shed in Israel or "until only Islam rules the earth"?

These are all clear instances of Muslims feigning openness to the idea of peace simply in order to buy more time to build up their strength.

Here, then, is the problem: If Islam must be in a constant state of war with the non-Muslim world, which need not be physical, as the ulema have classified several non-violent forms of jihad, such as "jihad-of-the-pen" (propaganda) and "money-jihad" (economic); and if Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty, amiability, even affection to the infidel, simply to further their war efforts — what does one make of any Muslim overtures of peace, tolerance, or dialogue?

This is more obvious when one considers that, every single time Muslims "reach out" for "peace," it is always when they are in a weakened condition vis-à-vis infidels — that is, when they, not their non-Muslim competitors, benefit from the peace. This is the lesson of the last two centuries of Muslim-Western interaction, wherein the former have been militarily inferior and thus beholden to the latter.

I guess a more correct term would be that Islam - and radical Islam in particular, is at war with us - whether we want to be at war with them or not. But what's the difference? :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

* War and Peace — and Deceit — in Islam
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim022709.html

JMI,

Quote me a line from Pres Bush stating this exact same thing in main stream media or go away. This isn't a request. You post a link to a blog and I'll ban you and your IP address.

I'm not laughing.

You have 24 hours.

Team Sergeant

Sounds a lot like...
 

...the core question of the Cold War.

What is wrong with an approach that is informed by the following sensibility?

________________________
* Ronald W. Reagan, National Security Decision Directive Number 75, U.S. Relations with the USSR, 17 January 1983, p. 2 as printed in Christopher Simpson, ed., National Security Directives of the Reagan and Bush Administrations: The Declassified History of U.S. Political and Military Policy, 1981-1991 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995), p. 256.

Let's Say Good BY to JMI?
 

Team Sgt. You gave JMI too Long to respond....Regard's, tom kelly

If I'm following you- we'd publicly announce a strategy to counter terrorist attacks that would lead to terrorist calculations of possible war outcomes under any contingency always resulting in outcomes so unfavorable to them that there would be no incentive for their leaders to initiate an attack. Is that right?

The thoughts I have on that are:

- would have to have strong home support for that kind of response (I'm assuming the response would be so great as to work- sort of like nuking or totally destroying the capital of whatever country the attacks came out of?)
- we'd probably have to display the response at some point (I'd argue Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave powerful examples to the USSR as to what we were willing to do)
- we'd have to assume no autonomous sleeper cells would do things on their own and that the terrorist leaders are rational

Although I think the thought is good- I'm not sure the other factors hold that would make it feasible/valid. Maybe if we lost hundreds of thousands to a WMD attack. Anything short of that and I'd argue that the political will at home isn't sufficient to pursue such a strong deterrent strategy. Although, it would be much cheaper, faster, appealing (to human nature), sensical, strategic, etc.

Some have argued that we can't do COIN in Moslem countries anyway- so this would free us up from an impossible mission and allow us to focus on conventional warfare. Too bad we didn't think of this right after 9/11. We could have just knocked Taliban strongholds back into the homo habilis era and warned more would follow if they so much as showed their faces again. Would that have worked?

Bailaviborita-

My thoughts are much in line with yours. I think garnering enough popular support for such a strategy would be the greatest obstacle. I think the discussions over the efficacy of such an approach would be energetic, even bitter. But why not have that discussion? This line of conversation may prove untenable or it might lead to an approach that would make America more secure.

My thinking is that this approach would motivate nations to do more to control the conduct of their own citizens. These nations would need to understand that they might be held accountable for terrorist attacks. They would need to understand that terrorist attacks would be construed as acts of war.

The citizens of these nations, rather than dancing in the streets and handing out candy to celebrate bin Laden's 'victory' on 9/11 would have good reason to think that their champion had placed not only their lives in peril, but their very way of life at risk of prompt and utter destruction. This realization could lead to massive demonstrations that led to conversations in which people realize "Hey, these guys, who claim to speak in our name, what have they done for us other than gotten us killed?" (Do not ordinary German citizens pour into the streets by the thousands when their idiot countrymen praise the ghastly specter of Nazism?)

It is said that Muslims have a remarkable sense of their history. Maybe if they had a better sense of our history they'd consider the advantages of leaving us the hell alone. Or, better yet, finding ways to make peace and to form lasting bonds of genuine friendship. The history of the American people is a story of folks from different pasts of finding ways to get along as citizens, neighbors, and friends.

The U.S. has been shouldered with the onus of the burden of proof since this war began. America has conducted itself with a level of restraint that is a testament to its national character (for better and for worse) and to the leadership of Bush the Younger. He has, for reasons I believe history will vindicate;), allowed America to be seen as the heavy. Our angst has clouded our vision. In this ongoing myopic moment, we do not see all the tools at our disposal.

Yes, the implications of this line of reasoning are horrible and the potential outcome is horrific. And that's exactly the point.

You are correct and I've fixed the problem.

I guess JMI could not back up his made-up "facts" and now he's gone.

Team Sergeant

I just thought- would we have tolerated some Soviet proxies getting on planes and flying them into U.S. buildings back in the Cold War and killing thousands? And the Soviet Union wouldn't have tolerated any of their proxies doing it either, I would assume. So- that might have been a good strategy and might have motivated other nations to keep more control on their citizens and clamp down on wacko ideologies and religious leaders.

Although we had a pretty strong consensus on who the enemy back then was. Not sure if we have that anymore. Seems like at least 1/3 of our population today wants to blame the other 2/3 for all our problems.

MOO - institutional memory should have answered those thoughts - but dealing with a government like the former Soviet Union on some of the spectrum of war's levels (e.g., Cold War nuclear/conventional) was much different from dealing with them on some of the other levels [e.g., proxy wars (Angola, Afghanistan, Sinai, etc) and trans-national terrorism (e.g., Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhoff, PFLP, etc] - and were never wholly resolved nor often times effectively dealt with by us or the free world during decades of conflict - even when we knew their source of support.

[Note: I certainly do not want to get into a deep discussion on this aspect of our actions, but I personally think a pervasive acceptance of moral relativism among the last couple of generations of the more modern first-world societies have had a significant impact on this issue.]

For those of us who do remember the aircraft hijackings and dealings with the terrorist (nationalist) groups of the 60s, 70s and 80s, the 9-11 scenario of the relatively recent and growing trend of nihilistic terrorist actions has added a new dimension to this complicated process as it has evolved.

My question is - what next? :confused:

For me, some worst case answers to that question are (1) a prolonged, concerted, and insidious attack on our and the world's economic systems, developing a deep-seated and irreversable mistrust in and anger toward's the major government's and monetary systems, or (2) a blinding flash of light from an unidentifiable source over a - e.g. - San Antonio ("Remember the Alamo!") or any major city at 0845 in the morning during the daily rush to school and work. A pandemic could also be ugly, but I personally worry less about that - naively, perhaps - because such fears have seldom panned out as predicted for a myriad of reasons.

No answers - just thoughts here.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

War with Islam
 

Oh, did I say this. We are in defense of our selves against Islam. Islam has declared war on all who are not muslim. it's their book, they believe it, and act acordingly as much as possible. Blitzzz

I am confused. I remember reading that Mohamed called Christians and Jews 'peoples of the book' and therefore brothers to muslims. What about that part... or has modern islam as a whole forgotten the words of thier prophet?

Mohamed also said a woman should "dress modestly"..he never said squat about a burka.. :rolleyes:

It seems to me, that Islam and other religions are not the problem. It is how mortal man interprets that scripture to his own ends, either bad or good.

San Antonio? What did we ever do to deserve that? ;)

Back in 1980 or so, I met a gentleman who knew quite a lot about biochemistry and related matters; in fact, his dissertation adviser had missed out on a Nobel by a narrow margin. We would sit and eat chips with salsa while discussing get rich quick schemes. (Legal get rich schemes, I might add). Some of the things we discussed cause me to believe that a bio-weapons attack should be an area to be considered.

But I really don't think the problem will be something organized by a foreign state, or even a group such as Al Qaeda. Instead, it may be a result of a combination of resource depletion and population overshoot. Whether we look at Italy, facing migration from Africa, or the U.S. with migrations from Mexico and points south, the potential problem remains the same.

If - admittedly, quite a big if - oil proves to be the central linchpin of the global economy I believe it is - then depletion may cause sharp declines in the availability of food, and hence the twin problems of a breakdown of government and large numbers of desperate people who will do whatever is needed to survive.

How one fights that situation is problematic. What one does with wave after wave of desperate humans who will take any risk may present the defining problem of the upcoming decades. And it may extend in time for the remainder of this century.

Now all of this connects with Islam - because many Islamic states have large populations, rapid growth, and resources that have been strained to the limit and beyond. Not only could this represent a ripe ground for recruiting terrorists in the accepted sense, but it also represents (IMO) a possibility for the mass migrations mentioned earlier. I think we must ask ourselves what happens if such states as Pakistan or Indonesia falter - what will their populations do? And how do we fight it?

At least Al Qaeda has a discernible leadership. But what if the opposing force no longer has a leadership?

Perhaps Somalia is a model of the future. The situation in that small area is disrupting much. What happens of the Somalian condition spreads - and spreads a lot? (rhetorical questions, BTW).

Get a copy of the book "Reliance of the Traveller." Full title is:

Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik

You can find it on Amazon. Skip the sections on how to wash yourself.

Read the sections about "Abrogation" - which tells you later sections of the Quran overrule the earlier ones...

Then read about Jihad.

WM is right about reading this Ref... You will have your eyes opened when you finish........

armymom1228
 

Not My book, and it's not what you believe it's what they believe. our bible has many versions also but the koran is "sacred". and supposedly unchanged.
When they attack us ,I'm not going to ask which book they are reading. Blitzzz

Great thank you Sir. I have done the internet research thing, and all I find is stuff like the above. ( my comment)

It is truly sad that man takes religion and turns it into an evil thing to harm others.

Ordered, will be here tuesday.. thank you..
AM

Don't have time or the desire to read the full text of that or any other book on the topic, Raymond Ibrahim - who has testified before Congress on this issue - has an excellent essay on this concept at:

War and Peace — and Deceit — in Islam
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim022709.html

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Something to consider is that Reliance of the Traveller is a manual of Shafi'i school jurisprudence.
Since Shafi'i comprise less than 30% of all Muslims* it might be a mistake to assume all Muslims, or even all Shafi'i for that matter, truly believe what it says.

* Wikipedia says 28%. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%27i

OK I will agree that it is Shafi'i but it gives you a good base for 1/3 +/- of the nut jobs. There are so many sects it is hard to get one Good Ref that covers all.

We here on this board do not use Wikipedia as a ref. Please refrain from doing so as anyone can change the data and they have a lot of erroneous info on it.:(:mad:

so...I'm wondering....what kind of Nazi recruiting took place in CONUS during WWII?:rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533525,00.html

The Bunds?
 

I done have it at my fingertips but I believe it/they were called Bunds(sp?). Chapters were quite active in northern US cities, and other countries prior to the US going into the war on the side of the Allies. They recruited people of Germanic origin to go back and fight for the fatherland.

There were a number of SS Divisions with a western origin or flavor.

Yep - many Americans - including Charles Lindbergh - were enamored with and openly supportive of the ideas of National Socialism...and Eugenics.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Here's an interesting CalState-Northridge exhibition on the GABund in Southern California:

http://digital-library.csun.edu/back...can-bund1.html

You've stirred my interest just a little so I'll have to do some research on the subject. I have read before that a number of American citizens returned to the Fatherland before or during WW II and fought on their side. One story in particular that I remember reading was about a couple of Americans who died during the battle of Stalingrad. That titanic struggle along with the battle of Kursk are of great historical interest to me.

Here is the link to the terrorist conference at the Hilton hotel on the 19th

http://www.investigativeproject.org/...chicago-suburb

Up until the U.S. became actively involved in WWII, there were many National Socialist programs being considered for adoption by our government. Hell, the PA Turnpike is modeled after the Autobahn, but Federal and State politics screwed that up so bad, its in no way comparable to the Autobahn today.

Ive also seen the term Radical Islamic Nazi or the combination being used on this thread. That is in no way a far fetched idea. Here is a good primer for your enlightenment:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/ This features Amin Al Husseini, the reputed "Nazi Father of Jihad". If this has been posted previousely I apologize, I did try to find reference to this article using the ever friendly search option.

And many of these troops used captured American uniforms and materiel and infiltrated the American lines:

THE ENEMY BEHIND OUR LINES
1. First US Army Traffic Control Section reports that
German soldiers in US uniforms are operating in the Army area
in a 1/4 ton Jeep, number 20504455, bumper marking MP
ASCZ C-5.
2. All AGO cards found on Germans in US uniforms
have, on the left hand fold, the inscription:
“W.D. A.G.O. Form No. 65.4.”
The cards also differ slightly from the one normally
carried by officers which is: W.D. A.G.O. Form No. 65-1, in
that in addition to the bearers signature, it is also countersigned
just below the signature of Officer. The AGO cards are brand
new, filled out by the German himself, signed by him, and then
dirtied up a bit – but the creases in the card can usually be
spotted as new.
3. Germans in the “Jeep parties” of Einheit STIELAU
have been instructed that the proper way to identify themselves
behind the American lines is to show their Soldier’s Paybook –
not a word about dog-tags. So far, of the men captured, only
two carried dog-tags with them, and they picked them up on
their own initiatives.. The Paybooks given them are taken from
our own P/Ws.
4. There are four grades of English speakers among
the STIELAU personnel – Group I is the best. The German
Officer is usually Group II which explains why he acts as a GI
and not as an American Officer. The best speaker acts as an
officer and sits beside the driver. The German officer sits
(normally) on the left rear and whispers instructions in the ear of
the German soldier posing as one of our officers. The worst
English speaker (usually Group III or Group IV) i s always the
driver. Therefore, the best way to trap these “Jeep Parties” is to
ask the driver for his trip ticket, and then ask the driver some
questions which he will have to answer.
5. None of the captured Germans in GI uniforms have
known their so-called serial number.
6. Jeep markings already identified on vehicles
carrying enemy personnel include VIII Corps, 8th Armored Div
– but in most cases 5th Armored Div. For some obscure reason,
the number of the Jeep (on the right hand side) is considered a
weak point by the Germans and is usually half obliterated with
mud.
7. All staff cars used by Germans captured so far
have been French Citroens – painted OD, complete with star.
However, reports have been received of Germans in civilian
sedans. Staff cars definitely should be stopped and our MP’s
must forget all rank when they ask for dog tags, ASN, etc.
Some of these GI-clad Germans are posing as high-ranking
officers. Rumor has it that von BEHR, one of the leaders of the
group, will be posing as a Brigadier General.
8 It must not be forgotten that these “Jeep parties” are
heavily armed and that the men realize that they are on a
desperate mission. Keep all suspicious Jeeps and their
occupants well covered while inspecting credentials.
9. It is reported that some members of the “Jeep
parties” have now exchanged their 1/4 tons for 3/4 ton trucks.
10. Most recent method of long-distance identification,
reported by captured” Jeep Parties,” is the holding of a rifle in
both hands, raising 2 ??? Above head and moving rifle up and
down.. Lights of various colors may now be used – or
combinations of colors – as permitted by the German Army
issue flashlight.
11. Greater scrutiny of all vehicles obtaining gas from
units and supply installations is required. These Jeeps are now
operating on gasoline they are obtaining from US Army sources.
One “Jeep Party” was captured recently at an Ordnance
Maintenance unit where they took the vehicle for repair.
Source: First US Army G-2 Periodic Report No. 199, 26 Dec 1944,
as reported in Third US Army G-2 periodic Report No. 203 dated 31 Dec 44,

Maybe we need to do a better job of enforcing code.:munchin