"Terrorism" is a tactic, not an enemy

It is maddening to hear the universal cacophony of voices talking about "Terrorism" as our enemy.  Such misdirection and/or sloppiness is embarrassing.

Terrorism (causing terror) is exactly like "carpet bombing", "gorilla warfare", or "flanking."  It is a tactic used by nations, groups and individuals in an attempt to accomplish something; the "something" does not have to be cogent or even sane.

The mass murderer who kills children in a school is using "terror" as a tactic; we don't understand it if he is insane, but it is his chosen tactic instead of standing in the middle of the road and waving a sign.  A homeless women engages in an act of Terror when she drives down a sidewalk, killing folks she doesn't even know.  A person who snipes at people driving cars by on an Interstate road is combining two tactics: gorilla warfare and terror.  I could go on and on, but the point is made:  Terror is a tactic...it is a means to do any one or more of many goals.  The goal is not particularly important.

Terror, when used by an individual, may have a goal.  It may not.  A mentally ill person may engage in a terrorist act and have no goal.  Mental illness was and remains the enemy.

A bank robber may shoot up, wound and kill many in the robbing of the bank.  The terror of multiple wounds and killings is for the purpose of causing fear and confusion and to make escape easier and more certain.  The Criminal Act was and remains the enemy.

When an extended group adopts the tactics of Terror for a purpose, it helps to identify the enemy, and the source that created that group as an enemy.  It does NOT help to focus on tactics; I remember the focus on the gorilla warfare of the North Vietnamese instead of on the source of their vision of the United States as their enemy.  What a waste of effort...and we failed to achieve our goals in that conflict.

Currently we have ISIS (ISIL or whatever other derogatory name is currently in vogue) as our enemy.  Their tactics include infiltration, conventional military warfare, psychological warfare, as well as Public Relations efforts in recruitment, terrorist acts,  and many others.  All of these are tactics.

Why does ISIS see the West in general and the United States in particular as the enemy?  They say (and it behooves us to listen to our enemy when the consistently declare why the hate us and avoid trying to re-define it in terms that we find comforting (and, most harmful, misleading), that we are destroying their their way of life, bringing immoral and unacceptable behavior to their countries, interfering with their way of life and trying to erode their lifestyle, indoctrinating their youth with the immoral and wasteful ways of the west and showing them and their brand of civilization no respect.  They also will quote the commands of their religion, Islam, as contained in the Qur'an, that they conquer the world and convert all to Islam.  Dying in this cause is seen as a guarantee of entry to Paradise, hence the willingness to engage in the terrorist tactic of body bombs and mass killings when death to the perpetrators is all but guaranteed.

Any reasonable person bothering to ask questions, read, and analyse all of this cannot escape the finding that the self-declared enemy attempting to fight, kill, and terrorize the west and the United States is Islamic in nature and most specifically involves devout extremist Muslims who have decided that they need to act now to save their perception of what civilization should be: Islamic.

There are Muslims in name only, just as there are Christians in name only; these folks claim the title and show up on special occasions and actually value the heredity of Islam...but neither group actually is dedicated to live the life that either the Bible or the Qur'an dictates.  They are not enemies of anything other than having their lives interfered with by the folks who comprise ISIS.  Still others have fully embraced the qualities and practices of the western world for various reasons:  women because of the freedom to make their own decisions and dress as they wish, the LGBT community because it avoids being put to death...and others.

The West in general and the United States in particular doesn't want to acknowledge the truth of what is presented here for a variety of reasons.  A main one is that the west has become afraid of confrontation and developed a distaste for stress of any sort; I call it the "pc movement."  How dare anyone make us feel "uncomfortable."  ...or "wrong." ...or put in an unwanted position of having to actually "do" something!  Like Neville Chamberlain, they just want to believe that everyone really just wants "to get along."  Wanting and acknowledging the truth are often not co-existent.

I wonder if we will ever see our President or any world leader acknowledge, and identify the enemy instead of repeating over and over references to the "behind the lines tactics?"  I am starting to doubt it.  Even if they called the tactics of terror a form of gorilla warfare it would be an improvement, because it would make everyone consciously aware that we have avoided actually putting a name on, and thus identifying, the real enemy.

That would be the start of what perhaps could become victory.

Is the concept of "Consequences" being eradicated around the world?

Sometimes I get so overwhelmed that writing seems as if it increases the pain and the disappointment in the world around us; that even commenting on it increases the clarity of the error(s) of our ways and makes it even more unlikely that there ever will be a Financial-like correction in our moral compass, bringing us back to something like a meaningful society.

But, eventually the words and thoughts build up and demand their freedom...a release, even if without effect, to flow into the universe looking for fertile soil in which the thoughts contained may take root and be discussed with other, compared, and considered.

So...today my thoughts center around what seems to be a general consensus of the majority that there should be no such things as Consequences.

Friends and acquaintances have said that I am over-reacting; that consequences are still the norm.  They point out that there are laws and, when broken, that they are enforced to settle consequences on the law breakers.  They suggest that generally, despite the exceptions, those who do evil and wrong things are held to account.

My response it that not only does it not happen often enough, but that the frequency of it happening is in decline.  Moreover, when people do the right thing, more often than not they are criticized for "getting involved."  Millions of people are cheating on their taxes; few are ever made to suffer any consequences, nor do they lose the approbation of their neighbors and associates...many of these miscreants are actually held in high esteem by those that know their actions.  Just yesterday a gang rape took place on a Florida Beach, surrounded by multitudes of young people drinking beer and partying, and not one person interfered with the attack.  Only because of the fact that someone actually filmed video of the event was any police action taken...if not accidental, then just sign of the fact that such behavior is acceptable.

There are some people who are psychopaths who will ignore laws in favor of their own wishes and desires.  There are others who need no laws to motivate them; they will do all they can to help others and make life better for their fellow man.  But the vast majority in the middle are remarkably responsive to the general behavior and general definition of acceptance in the ordering of their lives...they won't rock the boat.  And it seems clear to me that the boat may be deserving of some rocking...not that I have much hope that such action will happen anytime soon.

Some of my friends suggest that this is simply a natural phenomenon; such a fall occurred to the Greeks as well as the Roman Empire and therefore it is inevitable that it happens to the United States of America.  I used to agree in major part with this view.

But now I wonder if it is not far more extensive that just an American phenomenon.  It seems to be spreading to the International Stage...to the entire world.  My friends say I am nuts...which, of course, may or may not be true and a subject that may be worthy of a full discussion at a later point...but I am not convinced.

Consider the events in Foreign affairs in the last year or so.  Terrorists killed our Ambassador to Lybia and others.  One person was arrested.  Have any of them been punished, much less caught?  Russia has annexed through force a portion of the Ukraine.  Has there been any uproar of any significance from the world nation states, much less those countries immediately surrounding the area?  For years, Pirates have operated lucrative seizures of ships off the coast of Africa, making millions of dollars from the hijackings?  Any serious repercussions to those pirates?

And more recently we have the rise of ISIL (or ISIS, or whatever they are calling themselves these days, as if it matters) and the killing of all believers in Christianity that they catch, as well as many of Islamic sects with which they disagree.  Any serious repercussions?  And some in the world see their cause as acceptable.  Yes, there are words of condemnation but few indeed...and tiny if you look at the percentage of involvement...people involved in standing against it.

Consider the matter of Iran.  Here is a nation-state that has a track record of lying and failure to abide by promises.  A nation state that finances and supports with material and people terrorists around the world.  Any consequences?  Well, one of my friends argued that we do have economic sanctions in force which hurts them.  Oh? Really?  Who is hurt?  The leaders?  The ones who control the actions of Iran?  Or is the people of Iran who suffer despite have very little, if any, control over the political decisions of Iran's leaders?

But that is the past and is almost an after-thought now.  Now Iran is working toward developing a nuclear capability, which could include nuclear weaponry.  So...what does the world do?  It sits down with the powers in Iran and begins negotiating.  Not declaring that such a development is unacceptable, which each participating nation had assured their own citizens up until a short time ago was not ever going to be allowed, but a timetable by which ultimately Iran would have the capability it desires...and also a lifting of sanctions.  And all of this based on a written promise by Iran to limit their activity toward such an end.  Doesn't anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?  A country that has a consistent track record of breaking promises now is to get relief from sanctions on the basis of a written "promise" to play well with others?  Really?  Wonder what odds would be given by any professional Book-maker on Iran fulfilling that promise.  And yet, multiple nation-states are actually seriously considering entering into such an agreement.

This is not only a failure of Consequences, but could be argued appears to be reverse consequences...a reward for bad behavior.

And the most recent event involves the Communist nations of Cuba.  Cuba has been cut off from diplomatic ties to America ever since the Communists took control of that country.  It has a proven record of human rights violations, has no freedom of the press, precious little freedom of religion and is a Dictatorship.  No change at all.  So...what are the consequences?  America opens up talks to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba.  This amounts, also, to reverse consequences; a reward for continued bad behavior.

What I am raising for discussion is that fact that all around the world there seems to be a general acceptance that consequences for bad behavior can be done away with and there will be no adverse repercussions.

I think that is not possible.  The balance that the world has heretofore acknowledged is that all people and nations should have the freedom to make decisions and choices for themselves....but that those choices have consequences.  It is the consequences that check the unfettered expression of wants and desires.  Freedoms without consequences becomes license...and that never turns out well for anyone.

Does anyone in the West WANT to understand Islam?

When politicians, heads of State, and pundits speak of events in the Middle East and terrorist acts around the world, their statements never agree when talking about motivation...and President Obama even refuses to consider Islam as any portion of the motivation.  Now, generally speaking, it is actors themselves who declare their motivation, not the victims or observers.  So...why is there confusion?

I suggest it is not because answers don't exist, but that each speaker is more motivated by their own political and ideological needs than by the desire to develop facts.  So...how does one get facts?  I suggest that a careful reading of the Qur'an (many translations are readily available on line and you can order a hard copy of you like books), listening to various Imams as they explain their religion and talking to Muslims in your community readily provide an understanding sufficient to our purposes.

The Qur'an commands its followers to strive for political power.  While doing that, followers are commanded to respect all other religions and their practices while Islam is in the minority.  If Muslims become equal in number and power, then they should demand equality of respect of Islam with any and all other religions.  Significantly, if Muslims do acquire political power and control, they are commanded to institute Islam as the only recognized religion, to impose Sharia Law and punish all violations as laid out therein.  Those who refuse to convert are then declared "dhimmi" or...and the circumstances are not entirely clear...killed.  There is a presumption that such an imposition is "Peaceful" since it is done by a gradual process of gaining power, although the imposition itself may involve violence, hence the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion.

One may logically ask,..."...but, what about the terrorists?"

Good question.  Islam countenances quite a bit of violence, for a variety of reasons.  Insulting the Prophet, as we have seen recently, can motivate Muslims to murder.  Simply the presence of behavior that is not acceptable under Islamic Law is enough to motivate some Muslims.  ISIS and other Islamic-based (as defined by the actors themselves) terrorist organizations and their members do not see any prohibition against establishing political power and control by gradual, much less peaceful, means and wish to make their supremacy happen NOW!

All of these statements and facts come out of the Qur'an, hadith, and Sharia Law.  They are remarkably easy to research, read and study, and I have found all Muslims prepared to speak of the contents and their beliefs.

When listening to all manner of people speaking of the terrorist actions as being totally outside acceptable Islamic behavior, and pointing to surveys of Muslims living in the West as proof, it is probably a good idea to be aware of the concepts within Islam of "Taqiyya." "idtirar," "kitman," "hiyal" which relate to different Islamic sects and allow dissemination (lying) to protect the faith or the practitioner.  So, any reliance on such polls or surveys is questionable at the very least.

Islam is the only "religion" that I have found that advocates achieving dominance here on earth by force.  Because it is so firmly based on a political goal, I have always believed that the only way for the politically correct West to fight this threat (very real if numerical and political supremacy is ever achieved in any country) is to use this ideological focus as a reason to define Islam as a political ideology with a religious base.  Such a view would allow control of its precepts, and prevention of adoption of its exclusive views of behavior without violating our concepts of freedom of religion.  I seriously question that non-Muslims would see required conversion as an acceptable practice of Freedom of Religion.  Nor would I.

But wouldn't it be logical, responsible and responsive...so say nothing about nice...if our leaders and our pundits did a little research on their own and present us with all the facts, instead of ill-based opinions?  It would be refreshing...and reassuring that our leaders can actually look our for our country and its citizens.

Islam: Peaceful, or a threat to the West?

Have you noticed how the great majority of terrorist acts recently have been perpetrated by those who uttered words, or left written evidence, that indicated they were acting as Muslims in the service of God?  And have you also noticed that almost every politician, with the two exceptions of the current President of Egypt and the French Defense Minister, has refused to even use the word "Islam" in anyway when referencing the terrorist acts?  Does that seem as strange to you as it does to me?

After multiple readings of English translations of the Qu'ran, it would seem that the answer to the question posed by my title is...both.

The two major publications that we look upon as the basis for Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the Qu'ran and the Bible.  According to Muslims, the Qu'ran was written by the Prophet, Mohammad.  We know the Bible was written years after the Jesus lived, not by him.  The Bible in the Old Testament is largely historical and allegorical; it provides tenets for living a live oriented to God, and provides specific instruction as to how to live one's life.  The New Testament is the story of Jesus' life and the message of redemption through faith in Jesus with the promise of rewards in Heaven.  The Old Testament in particular describes historical events when God instructed his "people" to conquer other lands, but nowhere contains any instruction for present day readers to take on any such political activity, even in defense of the religion.  The same is true of the New Testament.  Such actions have been undertaken in the name of Christianity in the past...the Crusades and the Inquisition come readily to mind...but they were movements driven by men who claimed to interpret or receive guidance from God, not from written direction in the Bible.  All religions speak to a higher existence that disdains violence in this life with rewards to come in the next life...except for one:  Islam!

Islam in the west seems to be a religion of Peace.  Yet we are aware that in nations where Muslims are in the majority, or have political control, they have absolutely no respect for any religion other than Islam; they require all to obey Sharia Law and any who are not converted take on "dhimmi" status, a second-class level of existence...or are killed.  To westerners, this is problematic...a conundrum that they apparently have no interest in understanding and definitely no interest in discussing publicly.  Why do you suppose that is?

To understand, one first must read the Qu'ran and understand not only its contents but also its authority.  As I wrote earlier, the Qu'ran was authored by Muslims Prophet, Mohammad while alive, not some historical remembering of him or things he said.  As such, it has absolute authority for devout Muslims...Mohammad spoke for God, and through the Qu'ran continues to speak for him.  There are no accommodations, no interpretations, no bargaining...if it is written, so it is and shall remain.  There is no room for asking what "is" is!

With that in mind, know that the Qu'ran commands that Muslims respect all religions so long as Muslims are in the minority.  They are to live a devout life, but honor others' beliefs and remain peaceful.  If and when Muslims become equal in power or equally influential in political circles, the Qu'ran then commands that Muslims require that Islam be given equal respect with other beliefs, and honor given to those that worship Allah.  So far, all this fits in with the western view of freedom of religion...live and let live, right?  Absolutely.  However it is the next step that means trouble.

The Qu'ran goes on to instruct the devout that should numerical or political superiority be achieved in a country, region or nation, the faithful shall impose Sharia Law and command all to convert to Islam.  If they refuse, or do not abide by Sharia Law, they either become "dhimmi" or are slain.

Some of you about now are thinking that that is ridiculous.  Really?  Consider the governance of Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal.  Not enough?  How about: Sierra Leone,  Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, and Uganda.  Shall I go on to the Americas?  Consider: Guyana and Suriname.  In Asia, as just a sampling, we have: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh...well, you get the picture.  In each of these cases, Islam rules and all are answerable to Sharia.  Lashings, beheading and stoning to death are not unusual.  Remember the spate of honor killings here a number of years ago? In lands ruled by Sharia, those don't even make the news, much less be other than proper responses by the heads of house holds.

Many have told me that this kind of thing cannot happen in America...or even in most western countries.  Really?!  How do you know.  Those Muslims who denounce the terrorists do so for one of two reasons.  The one that we wish to be true is that they do not agree with the terrorists in any part of their beliefs.  But there is a very real possibility that some of "our" Muslims are devout, and as such do not try to rush the acquisition of numerical or political superiority...which they think that the terrorists are doing wrongly.  The devout are content to await their ascension to political power and then will, in accordance with their devoutly held beliefs, happily establish Sharia Islamic rule and require all to convert to Islam or take the degrading status of dhimmi while not in any way granting immunity from the application of Sharia law and its punishments.  Western women who like fashion, men or women who like alcohol, unrelated sex, or belong to the LGBT community will find no comfort if that happens.  But meanwhile, devout Muslims...those we could correctly call "fundamentalists"...will continue to get a head start on destroying the West they see as a threat to true Islam...and they will include any Islamic groups they see as no conforming to their vision of what true Islam is...

Anyone can see the politically correct conundrum that these facts would put on today's western diplomats, office holders, militarists should they be required to acknowledge them.  Their cowardice in the face of such a large potential problem is totally understandable...even as it is nonetheless inexcusable.

Mission Control...we have a problem: Egypt

Continuing the President's fascination with space references to encapsulate current events on the ground, our political mission control does have a problem.  Heck...I have a problem.  And I wonder if I don't have a lot of company.  How many of us have even spent a few minutes wondering, much less reading and studying, about modern Egypt and its effect on the United States and the Middle East?  Not many, I would wager.

And to try to get up to speed right now is to swim upstream against the purveyors of panic and disaster.  So...attempting to at least get an idea of the game board, and where we stand, who are the players?  First, of course, there is Mubarak.  Leader of Egypt since the 80's, he is a strong, autocratic ruler who came out of the military and has their instinctive support.

Then there is his security chief, Omar Suleiman.  Just sworn in as Vice-President of Egypt this morning (significant, as there has been no Vice-President during Mubarak's almost 3 decade-long run as President), he has been the head of Egyptian State Security since 1993.  He is a very powerful figure in international circles, very good at his job.

 Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel laureate and former secretary general of the International Atomic Energy Agency is a major political opposition leader who flew home to Egypt to join in the demonstrations.  He is currently under house arrest.  While some complain that he is a "johnny-come-lately" to the protests, he did get some street cred for his joining in the demonstrations on Friday before being put under arrest.


Another potential political figure is Arab League Secretary General Amer Moussa.  A former Egyptian foreign minister, he was in Davos at the World Economic Forum.  It is not clear that he would want to leave his current post in order to jump into the chaos back home, but if so he could be a factor.


Then there is Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Army, Sami Annan.  Appointed to the position in 2005 by Mubarak, he will reflect the opinion of the Military at large, no small concern.  The public holds the army in high esteem, so the usual distrust by the people of anyone connected or appointed by Mubarak may be somewhat less for Annan, but there is no indication that he has any designs, conscious or sub-conscious, on holding the top office.  He will likely speak for the Military and, as such, could determine any care-taker regime and the speed of any change, should that come to pass.


And finally, the fly in the ointment is not just one man but a group, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.  Although weakened by the constant prosecution, harrassment, and detention by Mubarak's government, it is still a visable force in the streets, as the Muslim youth pour out of the mosques to join in the uprising.


So...what is the likely-hood for an end-game?


First, Mubarak is likely at the end of his run.  The only question is one of timing: immediately or with the advent of new elections within a relatively short time.


Turning to the likely ascendant to power, my bet would be for ElBaradei.  Why?  Because the Military is unlikely to allow an Islamic oriented government...and the military has veto power...so any Islamist is out. Annan does not want power, just a peaceful Egypt.  Moussa is too comfortable and has too much power and wealth doing what he is doing.  Why would he want to get down in the mud with the other peasants? He already has gotten his.  Suleiman is a potential, but he was appointed by Mubarak and it is unlikely that anyone with that close a connection to the out-going President can succeed politically, regardless of his desires.  And, although, I have not even raised his name before, Mubarak's son is totally out of the picture.  He has never been military, so the army has no liking for him, and the people will absolutely not even consider him in any position of power.


Whether immediately, or at the next elections, I think we will see ElBaradei as the next leader of Egypt.


Last question...what does this do to the political climate in the middle east vis a vie Israel and Islam?  I thing the status quo holds on both.  Egypt and its people are solidly behind secularist government, and both have investments in continuing the current position with Israel.  


Now...we have to sit back and see how it all plays out in real life.  I hope my analysis is right.  As a side note, it will be extremely interesting to see how quickly the Obama administration analyses and chooses postitions diplomatically during this crisis.  I predict some serious stumbling around, both publicly and behind the scenes...this is a decidedly callow group in power lacking a high-power diplomatic mind.  If it doesn't hurt the United States, it should be entertaining.

Economics is the new "religion"

Beginning in the later part of the Nineteenth Century, and continuing to the present, Progressives (which morphed into liberals, then back again, and include Socialists and Liberal Democrats) have successfully fomented the notion that mankind does not need God, that God is passe.  Their efforts to remove God from public life has been singularly successful, as has their effort to sell the populace on the the idea that Mankind can raise itself up and create it's own Utopia...self-governing it to increasingly improve both Mankind and life on this earth.

There is, however, a small problem.

Whether consciously or sub-consciously, mankind knows that it doesn't have all the answers and needs reassurance that it is doing the "right" thing.  Other humans cannot meet that need...after all, if you don't have the answer there is no reason to believe that any other human being on the planet, no matter how smart and gifted they claim to be, has the requisite authoritarian position.  So...what to do.

Having already denigrated and dismissed religion of any sort, that path is now closed, but...perhaps by another name?

Consider that success for the past Century plus has been defined, not by moral happiness, but by acquisition of money and all that it can buy.  How automatic has it become for us to gage how well we are doing by the level of our bank account, our savings or our investments...breathing a sigh of relief if the balance looks "healthy."  Gone are the days that even if you had little money, you considered yourself successful if you had a house over your head (rented or owned) weren't going hungry, your family was reasonably clothed and MOST IMPORTANTLY, you had a happy family that loved each other.  No mention of money in that sentence, right.  Money was seen as a necessary evil,  not the gauge of happiness.

Then, God out, self-improvement in.  No longer is morality or contentment the signal evidence of a good life...now it is "stuff" and "wealth."  But...there is that aforementioned doubt and desire for affirmation from a higher source.

Enter the development and standing of "Economics."  A "Science", an authoritative statement and means of judging success.  And, of course, a new High Priesthood...Economists.  Not the same as Priests, to be sure, because they were talking about "Science" and using their authority to protect your ability to "succeed."  But their status gave their utterances a higher consideration, a higher authority (like priests, speaking for God?).

Just how, pray tell, is this any different (other than nomenclature)  from religion.  And there are competing Economic theories, just as there are different Churches. Instead of Churches, there are buildings and Colleges dedicated to the study of Economics.  I will admit that, with one exception, there isn't a 100% parallel (but it is very close).  The only completely parallel comparison is with Islam.  Both Economic Theory and Islamic belief call for taking political power so as to create, protect, and defend the coming Utopia for the people of the world...continued rising wealth for all people in the case of economics, and paradise both here and the hereafter for Muslims.

So that will be the future battle for world domination...Islam versus Secular Economic Wealth as a measure of success. One heck of a choice.  I predict a bloody future, whichever wins.

Is today's Turkey tomorrow's America?

George Friedman has been writing a fascinating series of articles recently sharing his view and travels that he entitles, a "Geopolitical Journey."  Each article stands on its own but does cause you to want to read each of the others, as it places the current political climate of a number of of the eastern European and border states in context with each other, the world and, of course, individually.  I highly recommend taking the time to slowly read and assimilate the thoughts in each article...they are fascinating.  And the thoughtfulness put into the presentation by Friedman is to be both appreciated and savored.

Anyway, I digress...to my point...

Friedman's description of the current state of civil, political and religious life in Turkey is enough for a semester course in any University of note.  He cuts through so much pre-existing world views of what and who Turkey really is that you continually find yourself having, as I call them, "Ah-hah!" moments.  Enough light bulbs go off in the course of reading that you almost keep looking up for the camera's with the old-style flash-bulbs.

Turkey today is being challenged by a population that is an Islamic majority, with a government that is hugely populated by secularists that have the support of a strong military that also favors secular rule.  The current political party in power speaks earnestly of the value of and it's interest in preserving a secular government, while acknowledging the Islamic demand for more input in governance.  The Islamic drive for political power is a given in Turkey...the background of the Ottoman Empire is still a genetic part of the population that is in various phases of conflict with a secular government designed by Atatürk following the First World War to pull Turkey into the modern era.  It is this history of secular governing that causes most of us in the West with only cursory knowledge of the country to have until recently seen Turkey as a western Allie on our side against the other-aligned Arab states.

But here is the most interesting element...with a secular Government that excludes any active involvement of religion, Islamic or otherwise, Turkey is now suffering from unease as Muslims are now demanding that accommodation be made for their faith by the government. These are not extremists, these are your regular, normal practicing Muslims that follow the Qur'an and the Prophet's teaching which include striving for political power.

There is unease particularly among young secular Turks, who do not want to be governed by religious tenets with which they do not agree.  And the current government, while elected with Islamic votes, has continually striven to re-assure the population that the government will not become Islamic and that Turkey will always remain a secularist modern society with all the individual freedoms that that promises.

Those in America who refer glowingly toe Islam as "the Religion of Peace," would do themselves a service by reading Mr. Friedman's article on today's Turkey with an eye to recognizing that the tensions in Turkey right now are likely to reappear in America in the future, as the Muslim population grows more and more rapidly and with it the demand for more and more accommodation for Islam in this country.

At some point there must be extensive, quiet discussion among reasonable people recognizing that there is conflict between Islam and secular government.  We in America will have to decide just what we can, should and will do about it.

Does the Federal Government know what it is doing?

The Muslim Brotherhood is, as I understand it, a transnational Islamic Organization with chapters in 70 or so countries.  There is one in America, at least an organization founded by the Brotherhood.  Now...here is their Motto:  "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; jihad is our way; and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

Doesn't exactly sound like a group with a live and let live attitude, does it?

The Islamic Society of North America was founded by Muslim Brotherhood member in the United States.  The Council on American-Islamic Relations was linked to Hamas support effort organized by the Brotherhood.  Sort of sets off alarm bells, doesn't it?  It does to me.

But...apparently not to either the Bush or Obama administrations.  A Hudson Institute report last year identified the American Islamic College (AIC) as having been planned by the Muslim Students Association, a affiliate of the Brotherhood (and the MSA was once headed by AIC founder Ahmed Sakr).  The significance, you ask?  Well, President Obama's personal "envoy" to the Organization of Islamic Converence in Chicago this week appeared on stage with Ahmad Rehab, head of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)...a CAIR official and a White House aide sharing a stage.

Due to exhibits in the Hamas-support prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the FBI has declared    "until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner."


But apparently the White House has no problem with this.And it is not just one...there are a number of Brotherhood speakers on the list for this conference: Safaa Zarzour, Secretary-General of the Islamic Society of North America, Imam Siraj Wahaj, who testified as a character witness for the Blind Sheikh, John Esposito, Dalia Mogahed, Rep. Keith Ellison, and Farah Pandith, the State Department's special representative to the Muslim community.


It is arguable that such activity by the administration empowers groups whose aim is to create an Islamic Nation in the United States.  Why isn't the government explaining how this is in any way serving to protect the United States from the obvious threat?  Why?

Sharia Law

What I find so dangerous and insidious about Muslim Sharia law and Islamic attitudes generally is the assumptive trust that western liberal-progressives have in Islam. Sharia law is accepted by devout Muslims. They accept its absolute nature and the penalties dictated. Islam also calls for the elimination of non-believers where Muslims are ruling. This can be by conversion, demotion to a slave-like position in society, or by death.

What liberal-progressives hang their hats on is that the Qur'an calls for treating non-Muslims equally...the same as believers. They point to this as being proof of non-discrimination by Muslims toward other religions and other groups. And, technically, they are correct in this observation. But their reasoning is flawed. What this proves is that if Islam becomes a majority, they will apply Sharia law to everyone...equally.

That means that adultery and homosexuality, among others, will result in death. Theft will result in amputation of a limb. Women will have to wear various forms of the hijab, or more. So...there will be equal treatment...but not the preservation of different life styles. If they become a majority, they will not allow the Supreme Court or the Congress or the President to frustrate what they see to be their solemn duty as called for in the Qur'an...to insure the Islam is followed by all.

It is a mystery to me how progressive-liberals can remain so sanguine in the face of these facts. Is it that they believe that the Constitution, which they have so successfully suborned, will somehow have more force when it serves their purposes in defending against the Islamic goal? Can they be that obtuse and/or stupid? And I am confounded by the failure of those who instinctively sense the threat to not clearly enunciate the threat in the manner I have described...I haven't heard one analyst comment along the lines that I see so clearly. Am I that wrong? If so, I would dearly like someone to disabuse me of my belief. I would dearly like to be wrong.

Greek Orthodox Church gets pushed behind the Mosque

Everybody seems to have forgotten that a small Greek Orthodox Church was flattened by the disaster on 9/11. The Port Authority reneged on an agreement to provide some money for rebuilding the church, and have refused to meet with the church representatives to get everything on the road to restoration. Have you seen the Mayor, any NY representative or Senator, or the President or anyone in his administration speak out on behalf of this Church? No? Neither have I.

How can this be?

I guess that they will be playing ice hockey in Hades before President Obama will be celebrating a dinner with the Greek Orthodox and speaking out for THEIR right to rebuild (not build, mind you but REBUILD their church. Of course, the President wasn't raised in a Greek Orthodox home, so perhaps it is unreasonable to expect his recognition, much less support, for their interests. And the ACLU is seemingly only interested in groups that attack, verbally or actually, the United States, so they have no interest either. And apparently the Mayor of NY has no interest either...perhaps he doesn't see the Greek Orthodox as part of HIS "inclusive" city. Do we all have to convert to Islam to get "equal" treatment?

Al Qaeda is NOT our biggest Threat

The State Department said today that Al Qaeda is America's main threat.

How can they be so obtuse?

Al Qaeda is NOT our main threat...it is militant Islamists. Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a Religion. There is no separation of Church and State. When in political power there is no respect for other beliefs or non-believers. Sharia law applies to all in the country, believers and non-believers alike. And their goal is to rule the world. And their Victory Mosque in Manhattan, just like the Dome in Jerusalem, is evidence of still another victory...and we are just too smug and stupid to see what is going on.