"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.

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.

Did "White Privilege" elect Mr. Obama?

It is difficult to get my head around exactly what people mean by the term, "white Privilege."  And worth a separate discussion in depth, but suffice it to say that right now I understand that it means that the lighter your skin...the more "white" you are...the more you are likely to succeed.

President Obama is half "white."  At least that is what I have read and been told.  So...do these people that espouse "white privilege" intend to indicate that it was the white half of Mr. Obama's lineage that got him elected, and not his striving and his accomplishments?  Because general statements that are proven to be true also hold up when brought down to the specific...and that is what we are talking about in this case: did, in fact, "white privilege" predestine that Mr. Obama would win the Presidency.  That seems absurd on the face of it:  his opponent was much lighter complexioned...although with a healthy tan, and in contrast Mr. Obama was darker.  If "White Privilege" is such an element of the failure of African-Americans to make more progress than so far accomplished, why and how is it explained in the face of Mr. Obama's election victories?

I must admit that this thought is NOT original with me; I heard the subject raised last night on "Red Eye Radio" and the concept leapt out into my brain, slept and broke out again this morning, yearning for release.

Another twist on this whole subject: suppose two African Americans are vying for the same position...private industry or public office...are we being told that automatically the lighter skinned one will get the job or be elected?  It seems to me that is what is being argued by those who claim every white person in America benefits improperly from "white privilege."

Also...does tanning count?  I mean, if one person has a deeper tan than another, does that mean that the pale one will win in an election for public office?

And...how does this concept account for the original proclamation that President Clinton was our first "black President?"  Does that mean that President Obama is now left with the historical footnote of being our first Muslim President?  The concept of guilt by skin complexion is murky at best...it would seem that letter grading wouldn't work...that we would have to make it a numerical system based on pigment density.  And...what would be the base line?  Do we need different base lines for different races, since they clearly do not start out equal.

Perhaps we can get the Global Climate Change folks investigating this...providing grant and government funding is available...

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.