Articles

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Understanding the Islamic War: The Basic Primer

Our biggest handicap in the war we're fighting is a failure to understand the nature of the war. We can best begin defining by defining what it is not.


It is not the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Those are only individual battlefields. Defining the war in terms of Iraq or Afghanistan is as limited as describing WW2 in terms of Algiers or the Philippines.

It is not the War on Terror. Terror is an emotion. Terrorism is a particular tactic. A group using it can be defeated. The tactic itself can only be defeated within the scope of a particular conflict.

It is not a war with Al Queda, Al Queda represents only an ideological faction of the enemy whose attack on us served as a wake up call. But the war predates Al Queda and will postdate Al Queda as well.


Here is what the war is. Our war is with Islamic Supremacism, similar to our struggle with Communism. This is a struggle not with nations, but with an ideology-- one originated by Karl Marx and reimagined by decades of Communist ideologues after him in the latter example and by Mohammed and reimagined by Islamofascist ideologues after him in the former example.

As the "Cold War" was only the closing act of a larger struggle with Communism that began in the 19th century, the Islamic War encapsulates the modern phase of a centuries old conflict. The modern phase of the Islamic War achieved its momentum at the end of the 20th century.

The end of the 20th century saw the world dominated by Socialist European derived nations in both hemispheres. From the United States to Europe to Russia-- the wars had died down. Communism had perished quietly as a failure, but social struggles had left their mark remaking most countries as fusions of socialism and capitalism. These countries were marked by increasingly higher standards of living and secularism which resulted in falling birth rates and rising immigration.

The increasing outsourcing of factories and production as well as the import of immigrants created Islamic populations within the West while providing technological training and resources to Islamic nations. These were to be the foundations of the war.

By the 21st century, the world had been divided into three enclaves.

1. Western Nations
2. Islamic Nations
3. Non-aligned nations

- The non-aligned nations represented little more than 'food' for the Islamic conquests, their populations subject to Islamic conversion while within them Islamic minorities funded by Islamic nations conducted terrorist campaigns. Asian and African nations with Muslim minorities were primary targets for these Islamization campaigns from Thailand to Nigeria. The primary goal of these campaigns was to carve out an autonomous Islamic region as a base for conquering the entire nation. Much as with Communist coups, once subverted under Islamic rule, the nation would join the Islamic side and serve as a launching pad for the next stage of the war.

- The Western nations faced a growing Islamic population which expertly employed the national self-hatred of its liberals, the willingness of its socialist parties to rely on "plantation minority votes" and the customs of tolerance of minorities to promote conversion on one hand, while funding and conducting terrorist campaigns on the other. Unable and unwilling to recognize the true nature of the enemy, they fought hasty piecemeal campaigns at home and abroad-- while refusing to recognize the true scope of the threat.

- The Muslim nations ruled by tyrants who balanced Islam against their personal power, teetered one way or another. Like the Communist nations before them, they sometimes quarreled and even fought brutally, but their ultimate cultural and religious enemies were in the West and they found it profitable to point their radicals in that direction... to maim and kill.


Defeating an ideology is very different than defeating a particular faction. It requires eliminating its foreign and domestic bases of support, demonstrating its ineffectuality and waiting until its own failures catch up with it. It requires a multipronged campaign taking place on a variety of battlefields from the military to the scientific to the cultural to the legal to the economic.

The greatest strength of a hostile ideology is its ability to subvert domestic institutions to serve the function of the enemy. Communism did that, Fascism did that and now Islam is doing it, gaining actual converts and finding fifth columns that it can exploit. It is worth remembering that both at the Battle of Vienna and the Gates of Vienna, European soldiers fought on the Muslim side and European powers sold each other out to the Ottomans... and that was a war of empires rather than ideologies.

A hostile ideology can function as a virus finding the cultural and political weak spots from disgruntled minorities to rebellious artists and thinkers to excessive tolerance and exploit them. It is willing and able to use any tolerance and presumptions of innocence in the legal codes against the system. Sabotage from within and war from without is the motto. The best way to counter that is to deny it access by preventing immigration and by negating or disabling those weak points.

The Islamic War is a clash of civilizations, it is less about winning on the battlefield and more about preserving a domestic culture. Europe didn't lose to Islam on the battlefield, it lost on the immigration chart. America doesn't face that particular danger on the same scale but a 10 million Muslim minority alone will make national self-defense virtually impossible. Without an end to Muslim immigration, war becomes civil war in a culture whose civilians are prevented from fighting back and whose government lacks the tools for coping with the problem.

Winning on the battlefield is important because it demonstrates the futility of an Islamic solution. Ideologies are embraced because they work. Those that prove their own failure are discarded the way most of the world has discarded Communism. But Islamic terrorism and guerrilla movements can keep a battlefield war going for decades by simply never confronting a superior force and relying on terrorist tactics. It's a long battle but a crucial part of humiliating and shaming the Dar Al Islam as weak and ineffectual.

Israel's victories over Arab Nationalist countries in war after war brought Arab Nationalism and Arab Socialism to its knees, a death blow that America completed with the War in Iraq. With the fall of these Westernized Arab solutions, the West confronts a fanatical revival of Islam on the Sunni and Shia sides incarnate in Al Queda and Iran. Defeating these is crucial to demonstrating the bankruptcy and failure of Islamism as a solution to the Muslim world and therefore to victory over the Islamofascist ideology.

2 comments:

Lemon said...

Yes, it is as it was in the time of Charles Martel, a war with the cult of Islam and its members. It is nothing less.
Note how the media denies this. G.Bush denies it too. We are told to make a difference in good cult members and bad and that it is only terrorists who are the bad ones.

najistani said...

INVASION OF THE PSYCHOPATHIC MOBOTS

Why are Muslims so different, so arrogant, aggressive, predatory and downright dangerous? Why are their leaders so deceitful and creepy? And why can they never live in peace with the rest of us?

To understand what makes Muslims tick, you need to understand how utterly slavishly they imitate the founder of their death-cult, the charlatan and false prophet Mohammed.

Mohammed was a terrorist, murderer, sadist, rapist, pedophile, slaver, robber, extortionist, control-freak, liar and charlatan. Okay, so nobody's perfect. But that unfortunately is the problem. Muslims are brainwashed from infancy into believing that Mohammed was indeed the perfect man, 'al-insan al-kamil and uswa hasana' the model of behavior for all those wishing to be obedient to Allah.

So to be a good Muslim is to be a robotic clone of the original founder of the the cult, whom you must emulate in every way, and in the process destroy your own individuality, judgement and conscience. Muslims try to ape Mohammed's behavior down to the tiniest details. For example, one of the Four Imams, Abmad ibn Hanbal, was a great Traditionalist. It is stated that he would not eat water-melons because, although he knew that the 'Prophet' ate them, he could not learn whether the 'Prophet' ate them with or without the rind, or whether he broke, bit or cut them.

Islam is not about right and wrong thinking but correct behaviour. If one imitates the behaviours of Mohammed, then one is observant and submissive. Morality is not a part of Islam. If there is a more fundamental difference between Islam and all other creeds and religions I do not know of it. It is so alien that the reader will have to consider its implications for some time to grasp the full meaning of it.

Muslims often try to deceive Christians and Jews into believing that Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is one of three closely related 'Abrahamic faiths'. But if we examine the ethical basis of Islam, and judge the tree by its fruits, we realise that Islam is totally alien. Judaism and Christianity have more in common with the unrelated Buddhism than they do with Islam.


For the devout Muslim there is no place for conscience, compassion or empathy, only mobotic behavior patterns programmed by a long-dead psychopath. There is no morality to be had in Islam. There is consequently no Golden Rule ('Do not do to another that which would be hurtful to you') or any other higher ethical principles. There is nothing apart from a huge number of prescribed regulations which must be obsessively and compulsively observed. Hence the lack of originality and creativity in the Muslim world. The Ummah has effectively only one brain for 1.2 billion people and that brain belongs to Mohammed.

The muslim has no need for a conscience, because Mohammed's example determines what is right or wrong. If he wants to rape a nine year old girl or slaughter a few hundred kuffar then he will not be bothered by a guilty conscience, because the 'perfect man' has set the precedents.

One of the principle characteristics of a psychopath is that he lacks any conscience . So does Islam actually attempt to turn its adherents into psychopaths? In current clinical use, psychopathy is most commonly diagnosed using the checklist devised by Emeritus Professor Robert Hare. He describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse". "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony.".


Islam produces swarms of mobotic clones programmed to emulate a seventh century psychopath. "It is so alien that the reader will have to consider its implications for some time to grasp the full meaning of it. "

Post a Comment