The World At War
Captain Allan P. Slaff
```````
The World At War
By
Allan P. Slaff
Sayed Qutb, a highly influential Islamic spiritual leader, decreed that Muslims
must answer to God alone and that human government was illegitimate. It was,
therefore, a proper target for jihad which would be waged by true believers,
destroying the kingdom of man to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth.
A former principal leader of the radical Muslims set forth
their plan for world domination with great clarity. He stated;
“As for our political agenda, as some people call it, we find
it summarized richly in the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) “I have
been sent with the sword, between the hands of the hour, until Allah is
worshipped alone.†It is necessary to point out that we do not believe in
politics in the way familiar with other groups… We fight in the way of Allah,
until the law of Allah is implemented, and the first step is to expel the
enemy, then establish the Islamic state, then we set forth to conquer the land
of Muslims to return them back to us then after that, we fight the kaffur
(disbelievers)… Our political agenda now is to expel the imposing enemy, this
is the beginning, and our agenda after it is to establish the Sharia of Allah
on earth. This is our political agenda.â€
Nothing could be clearer and this basic sentiment has been emotionally repeated
by uncounted Muslim leaders through the years. It has become the bedrock mantra
of the Islamic extremists, and by inaction, apparently at least passively
supported by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world.
Daniel Pipes in an excellent article entitled “What Do
Terrorists Want? (A Caliphate)†published in The New York Sun on 26 July 2005
reinforced this basic Islamic idea. He stated:
“In nearly all cases the jihadi terrorists patently have a
self evident ambition to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam and
Islamic law, the Sharia. To cite the Daily Telegraph (a British newspaper)
their real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe
and the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate founded on Sharia lawâ€.
It might be well at this juncture to define what is meant by
Sharia Law. According to The Encyclopedia of the Orient; “Shiria is a
religious code of living based upon Muslim interpretation of the Koran. It
extends beyond law. Sharia is the totality of religious, political, social
domestic, and private life. It generally applies to all people living inside a
Muslim societyâ€
En route to establishing a Caliphate under Sharia law, in
addition to militant jihad, the Islamic Council of Europe described the process
of gaining control of the host country.
“Once the, (sic. Islamic), community is well organized, its
leaders should strive to seek recognition by the authorities of Muslims as a
religious community having its own characteristics. Once recognized, the
community should continue to request the same rights that the other religious
communities enjoy in the country. Eventually the community may seek to gain
political rights as a constituent community of the nation. Once these rights
are obtained, the community should seek to generalize its characteristics to
the entire nation.â€
Thus at the outset of this examination we have a clear
statement of the basic aims and tactics of Islamic extremists i.e. the
reestablishment of the Caliphate, the government of the faithful which
controlled a good portion of the known world during a six hundred year period
beginning almost immediately after the death of Mohammed.
According to the Encyclopedia Americana the first Caliphate was
established in 632 AD. The selection of the first Caliph did not proceed very
smoothly. Ali, the son in-law of the Prophet was by many considered to be the
first legitimate possessor of the dignity which gave him equal honor with the
Prophet. It was not to be for Ali. Instead Abubekr, no relation to Muhammad,
was chosen.
Thus at the very beginning a schism developed. Those Muslims
who believed the Caliph must have a traceable direct relationship to Mohammad
became known as the Sunnis and those who did not, became known as the Shiites.
Thus the Caliphate got off to a shaky start, and although it expanded
enormously it was not without constant intrigue, tensions and murder.
After consolidating his power, Abubekr did not lose any time in
launching his armies to spread the doctrine of Mohammad using the watch word
“conversion or tributeâ€. Thus during the next 400 years the 56 Caliphs were
relentless in successfully expanding the Caliphate.
At its high tide it extended from the Iberian Peninsula in the
west, eastward through most of North Africa the Mediterranean Islands, through
Arabia, Persia, Georgia Afghanistan, Turkistan, India, and on through Southeast
Asia including Indonesia, Borneo, Java and the Philippines.
The Caliphate was finally checked and thrown back by the
Tartars under Genghis Khan and it was further reduced by the Mongols. In
Western Europe, the Muslims’ attempt to push into France was defeated in 732
at the battle of “The Martyrs Royal†by Charles Martel.
In the west, the Muslims were decisively beaten at the Battle
of Toledo in 1492. Coincidentally it was in the same year that Columbus set out
from Spain for his first voyage of discovery. This major defeat was the
beginning of the end of Muslim domination of Portugal and Spain.
In 1571 the Caliphate took another beating at a naval battle
where the Christians and Ottomans fought in the straits off Lepanto. It was a
devastating defeat for the Caliphate. Approximately 15,000 Turks were slain or
captured and some 10,000 Christian galley slaves were liberated. Later, in 1683
the Muslim’s attempt to push northward into Central Europe was defeated in
two battles at Vienna.
According to the U.S. State Department International Freedom
Report, the remnants of the Caliphate, however survived until it was officially
ended by the Turkish government in 1924. But while the Caliphate was finally
put out of business it left a legacy of 1.52 billion Muslims spread throughout
the world. There are presently 44 countries in which there is a Muslim
majority, and there are an additional 12 countries where there is a Muslim
population of at least 20% or more.
With the rapid development of the world-wide phenomenon of the
radical Muslim movement there are constant calls for the return of the
Caliphate through any or all means. This Muslim drive towards world domination
is being reinforced and strengthened by several major competitive advantages.
What are these competitive advantages?
Starting with an incredible base of 1.52 billion Muslims and
with powerful forces working to their advantage the Muslim goal of world
domination at the moment looks bright indeed and should be a cause for genuine
alarm. It is the free and democratic world that is at the disadvantage and
very much on the defense.
Another powerful advantage is the incredible wealth of much of
the Muslim controlled world through their control of much of the world’s
present proven oil reserves. Saudi Arabia is one of the most important sources
of this enormous and powerful wealth. The Saudis, for instance, have been
willing and enthusiastic facilitators in the relentless drive of the Muslims to
push south in sub-Saharan Africa.
The distinguished and world renowned political geographer, Harm
de Blij, very articulately described the five calamities that face the African
continent. They include the escarpment that exists just inland around the
sub-Saharan African Continent. This seriously and adversely affects the natural
flow of commerce since there are few navigable rivers, and other means of mass
transportation are inhibited. The second is the terrible scourge of Aids which
has both infected and killed millions. The third is the tribalism that still
exists in powerful ways that inhibit the development of free and democratic
societies. The forth is the generally corrupt and ineffective governments that
plague most of countries in the sub-Saharan African Continent and seriously
weakened agricultural production, and the fifth, which he considered the most
dangerous, is the effective and inexorable Muslim movement south.
In a presentation on the subject, he displayed a large map of
Africa. On it he drew lines representing the southward movement of the Muslims
at ten year increments. The lines depicted a steady and continuous advance as
more and more sub-Saharan countries have come under Muslim domination.
He explained how it works. The Muslims move into an area that
is generally suffering from extreme poverty. Using the large amounts of monies
supplied by the Muslim oil rich states, they establish health clinics, child
welfare centers, social centers, day care centers, etc., which quickly
establish them as benefactors. Then they build the mosque, then the madras
(religious schools) modeled after the Wahabi madras’s that exist in Saudi
Arabia, and then they proselyte the native population. Once they have a
comfortable majority, they change the basic rules of life. Sharia law becomes
the law of the land. The natives are no longer given the option of converting.
They are infidel and they convert or die. The process has worked most
effectively and continues to work.
Where there is resistance such as presently exists in the
Darfur region of Sudan, the Muslim controlled government using its sponsored
Janaweed Arab militia mercilessly attack the black indigenous ethnic groups. In
the Darfur area it has left approximately 400,000 people dead and 2.5 million
displaced as refugees. It is truly genocide indulging in systematized large
scale murder and rape. The UN has done little to stop it because of the
political resistance of the Sudan government. A similar massacre is occurring
in Somalia largely against Christian Ethiopians.
It is interesting to note that the tactics used by the Muslims
in their southern offensive in Africa adhere amazingly closely to the
directions given for the process by the Islamic Council of Europe as previously
chronicled.
There are other competitive advantages facilitating the drive
to reestablish the Caliphate. Demographic trends in much of the free and mature
democracies are worrisome trends indeed. Western Europe and Russia are two good
cases in point. An examination of the demographics in these strategically vital
areas is pertinent to this issue.
In an article by Mark Steyn in the Wall Street
Opinion Journal, he examined this alarming depopulation trend in light of the
growing Muslim population. He pointed out that the increase in global
population between 1970 and 2000 was 9% but the increase among the Muslims
accounted for 26% of the total increase. He added that between 1970 and 2000
the developed world relative population declined from 30% of the world
population to just over 20% while the Muslim nations population increased from
15% to 20%.
Focusing on Western Europe, Steyn pointed out that since 1970
European countries have taken in about 20 million Muslims not counting the
enormous number of illegal Muslims that have found their way into Europe.
It is generally accepted that to maintain a level population
the reproduction rate of women of child bearing age must be 2.1. But according
to a report issued by the British House of Lords Select Committee on the
European Union, the birth rate per child bearing women in some of the western
European countries is alarmingly below the replacement rate. Italy is at 1.21,
Germany at 1.37, and France is at 1.77. Thus the indigenous populations of
these countries are in a serious decline. On the other hand the large Muslim
populations are increasing rapidly not only because of the inflow of Muslims
but because the Muslim replacement rate is on an order of magnitude higher than
that of the indigenous Europeans.
If it is assumed that the replacement rates presently being
experienced continues, it is not unreasonable to predict that in forty years
which is not all that far in the future, while the geography and the physical
structure of Europe will not change Sharia law may indeed be the law of the
land. Of course, all such projections are based on the stated assumptions. In
many long range projections such assumptions have proved to be wrong and the
projections were therefore wrong. Witness the seriously received MIT Study on
the world food supply completed in the 1970s. According to it, the world would
run out of sufficient food to feed its growing population by the end of the
century. It proved to be dead wrong, because it was based on the assumption
that the technology of food production would remain static. In fact, it
advanced enormously.
Mr. Steyn concluded his article with a pertinent quote by Tony
Blair;
“What do we leave behind?†asked Tony Blair. “ There will
only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and French and Italians by the mid
point of this century. What will they leave behind? Territories that happen to
bear their names and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying
European races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the
peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to pluralist,
liberal democracy? It’s the demography, stupid. And if they can’t muster
the will to change course, then “What do you leave behind?†is the only
question that matters.â€
As bad as the demographics are in Western Europe the
demographics in Russia are even more frightening. According to the U.S.
Department of State there are estimated to be 21 to 28 million Muslims
presently in Russia, representing about 20% of the population.
The future of the Russian demographics can only described as
alarming. In 2006 the estimated birth rate among ethnic Russians was 9.95/1000
and the death rate was 14.65/1000. In the United States, in comparison, the
death rate was 8.26/1000. The Russian fertility rate in 2006 was estimated to
be an critically low 1.28. Thus the ethnic Caucasian Russian population is
declining between 750,000 and 800,000 per year.
On the other hand, the Russian Muslim population is exploding.
Aggravating all of this is the struggle that Russia is having in keeping
control of Muslim Checneya. Muslim controlled countries which border the
southern frontier of Russia add to the disquiet. All of these factors if not
reversed will lead to Muslim control of this huge and strategically important
country in the not too distant future.
And yet there are still other important forces which are
pushing the establishment of the Caliphate forward. There is enormous
evidence, for instance, that the Radical Left is aligning itself with the
Radical Muslims.
The radical left in America, in particular, has mobilized its
disparate parts to do everything that it can to undermine America’s efforts
to fight the radical Muslim initiatives and to undermine the American effort to
bring democracy to Iraq. The two radical groups, though completely different in
their philosophies have bought into the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my
friend.
The radical left, when its many factions are taken as a whole,
represents a significant force in the United States. It has been and still is
dedicated to the destruction of U.S. democracy with its free enterprise system,
personal ownership, and majority rule. These leftist organizations were
closely allied with the communist Soviet Union. They did their level best to
support, defend and further the aims of the Soviet including the spread of
Communism around the world.
They, as it turned out, were betting on the wrong horse in
their drive to establish a new order of “social justice†what ever that
means. When the Soviet Union existed “social justiceâ€, of course meant,
central economic planning, state ownership of the means of production and a
dictatorship. The central idealistic idea was that man would produce according
to his ability and would receive according to his needs. The system was a flop.
One Soviet worker described the system thusly. “They pretend to pay us and we
pretend to workâ€. It was bound to fail because it ignored human motivation
and because the free world had Ronald Reagan who raised the ante in defense
spending until the Soviets finally threw in their hand.
In a way, the demise of the Soviet Union was a blessing for the
radical left, as it was relieved of the requirement to support an obviously
failed system. It still hates America and still maintain its primary aim of
destroying American democracy in pursuit of their ephemeral drive towards world
“social justiceâ€.
David Horowitz in his superb book “Unholy Allianceâ€
explores in depth the convergence of the common hatred of the United States by
the radical left and the radical Muslims. Both fervently believe that they must
destroy American democracy and must bring “social justice†to America and
the rest of the world. The radical left is being aided and abetted by the left
in general. The U.S. media with its leftist bias, the left which has captured
most of the campuses in the country, many on the political left and many of
organized religions are sympathetic to the idea of America losing in Iraq and
against increased efforts domestically to take steps to defend against Muslim
terrorist attacks. Their general hatred of President Bush helps to motivate
their support for many of the goals of the radical left and indirectly the
radical Muslims.
And what could possibly be the commonality that has developed
between these virulent radical groups, especially since many on the radical
left would be the first to be singled out for beheading if the Caliphate
extends its control over America. The only explanation resides in the shared
hatred of the United States
David Horowitz, explores in depth the convergence of these
radical groups in their hatred of the United States. He writes;
“The goal of the radical jihad is purification and social
justice both of which are to be achieved through the institution of Islamic law
in the states conquered by Islamic arms.†The radical left wants to destroy
the government of the United States but it can’t possibly envision the
destruction resulting in the institution of Islamic law which, of course,
defines them as “infidelsâ€
The alliance is somewhat reminiscent of the alliance made
between the Soviets and the Germans in the early years of World War II. They
hated each other and the alliance was bound to self destruct as any alliance is
destined to destruct between the two radical forces. In the mean time, however,
these virulent forces are allied in their efforts to destroy American democracy.
According to Mr. Horowitz, a group that calls itself
“International Answer†(Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is essentially
a coalition of radical groups that sponsor most of the antiwar demonstrations.
This umbrella group actually fronts for The Workers’ World Party, a Marxist
Leninist vanguard aligned with North Korea’s communist regime and with the
International Action Center which has been formed by the radical former U.S.
Attorney General Ramsey Clarkâ€
If all those previously identified forces were not worry
enough, there is still another self inflicted phenomenon that is facilitating
the efforts of the jihadists. The idea of “political correctness†has
infected the U.S. and the U.K. and is seriously inhibiting U.S. government
officials and their policies that directly affect U.S. security. It is so bad
that the government leaders cannot even bring themselves to identify the enemy
as Muslim extremists. They insist on referring to them as “terroristsâ€. How
ridiculous! That’s akin in World War II to calling our Japanese enemies
“kamikazesâ€. Terrorism like the kamikaze is a tactic. It is not an enemy.
This political correctness is diluting and weakening U.S.
efforts to protect our nation and our citizens from the radical Muslims that
repeatedly call for indiscriminate attacks on our country. Witness the typical
security procedures currently being enforced at our airports. In order to avoid
any charge of discrimination or racial profiling, security personnel routinely
pat down elderly grand mothers who wouldn’t know a bomb if they fell over one
but made the mistake of wearing their necklaces and bracelets while going
through the screening procedure. To focus on those who meet the profile of
Muslim extremists would surely bring howls of protest from the ACLU and the
Muslim leaders in the community. Of course, the media would also scream about
racial prejudice and civil rights. This is certainly not making the already
difficult job of protecting the US any easier.
If security efforts are being inhibited by the almost
ridiculous application of political correctness in the US, the detailed
examination of it in the UK in her splendid book, “Londonistan†by Melanie
Phillips makes the US brand of political correctness pale in comparison.
According to Melanie Phillips, the result of this political
correctness has caused the UK authorities to ignore or understate the danger of
the radical Muslims. A study by the British Home Office in 2004 found that 26%
of the British Muslims felt no loyalty to Britain; 13 percent defended Muslim
terrorism and 1% was actively engaged in or supported the Muslim terrorists.
While 1% is not a very large percentage, based on the Muslim population in the
UK, it amounts to sixteen thousand; a frightening number. The survey also found
that 32% of the British Muslims believe that western society is decadent and
immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end.
In a separate poll conducted by “The Guardian†it found
that 61% of the British Muslims wanted to be governed by Islamic law operating
under Sharia law principles.
While it is certainly true that the great majority of the
Muslim population wishes nothing more than to live in peace, the same
population reacts in a less than helpful way when a Muslim terrorist attack
occurs. The Muslim leadership decries the terrorist attack not identifying it
as an act by Muslims. When the strong reaction to the indiscriminate killing of
innocent people occurs, the Muslim leadership immediately charges racial
prejudice and bigotry. A search for any evidence of mass protest by any Muslim
community against the acts of Muslim terrorists has come up empty. It would be
reasonable to expect that the so called moderate Muslim community would show
public outrage and indignation against those Muslims who have participated in
the wanton killing of innocent people. Apparently that is not what has
happened. It is not because they have an aversion to public demonstrations. The
Muslim community has demonstrated its ability to take to the streets in mass
demonstrations. Witness the mass Muslim public demonstrations of outrage when
the Danish press published cartoons which the Muslim communities felt insulted
Mohammad.
And still another worrisome issue is the development
of nuclear weapons by avowed enemies of The United States. The radical Muslims
who control Iran are pushing ahead with their nuclear weapons program in spite
of the sanctions of the United Nations In like manner; North Korea has already
developed nuclear weapons. The danger in the Iran case is quite obvious. In
North Korea’s case the primary danger is that this unstable and isolated
communist state will sell nuclear weapons to Muslim extremists who have
repeatedly said that they intended to obtain weapons of mass destruction. As
proof, witness the recent destruction by the Israelis of a nuclear facility in
Syria being developed with the aid and support of North Korea.
To summarize then, the radical Muslims’ are pushing ahead
with their goal of world domination with the aid of several competitive
advantages.
1. Their great worldwide population.
2. Their well conceived plan and tactics.
3. The tremendous wealth of the Muslim states to facilitate the
expansion of their control.
4. The demographic trends of of much of the western countries
are alarmingly in favor of the Muslims’ push.
5. The radical Muslims’ alliance with the radical left in
their shared hatred of the United States with the added support of the
political, academic and media left.
6. The political correctness which has infected our society is
inhibiting our government’s efforts to counter the Muslim threat.
7. The lack of vocal and moral support of the general Muslim
population in countering the radical Muslims.
8. The great danger of the radical Muslims of acquiring nuclear
weapons.
What’s to be done? It is certainly the worst threat to the
free world that has occurred since the era of Nazi Germany, and it must be
effectively countered, but how? First the incredible danger to our free
society must be forcefully and universally identified so that the citizens of
the free world know both the danger and consequences of losing. Secondly, the
free word must put individual national issues aside and must band together in
an effective way to wage a powerful and total war against the threat. The US,
in particular, must, as it did in World War II, approach the threat in a
bi-partisan manner and the media must stop its incessant “gotchaâ€
journalism. We must mobilize our industries, our war production and our
military for total war. And finally, the people of the free world must gird
themselves for a long and bloody war that will be required to defeat the
terrible danger that we face. World War II was enormously costly in both lives
and treasure, but in spite of the terrible cost the free world hung in there
and was ultimately successful, No less an effort is required now.
Benjamin Franklin had it right when our founding fathers were
debating the issuance of the Declaration of Independence. He said to his fellow
delegates, “We must hang together or we most assuredly shall hang
separately.â€
_____
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products
<http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001> and
top money wasters
<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop00030000000002>
of 2007.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
