[BJP News] World War IV

[Guest guest]

"The best way to understand Islam is to view it as a warrior's faith

>designed to support Arab imperialism in the 7th, 8th and 9th

>centuries. (See my article, "Once were warriors".) That is why

>apostasy ranks so high as an offence and worthy of the death

>penalty. They see it as a defection to the enemy.

>

>That is also why they reflexively support monsters like Saddam in

>the Gulf War II and are so ready to believe the most preposterous

>conspiracy theories. To them, a Muslim in any confrontation with

>infidels can do no wrong and must be supported. Thus, even the

>moderates cannot be counted on to support the forces of democracy in

>World War IV."

 

 

 

>BJP News <bjpnews

>bjp-l (BJP Discussion Group)

>vaidika1008

>[bJP News] World War IV

>Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:10:13 -0800 (PST)

>

>World War IV

>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Ohmyrus31103.htm

>By Ohmyrus

>

>The War on Terrorism is actually World War IV. Most people don't

>appreciate this because of the asymmetrical nature of this war.

>Nation states are pitted against terrorist organizations and not

>against other states like in previous World Wars.

>In a way, asymmetrical warfare is more dangerous because the enemy

>could be living amongst us. These men are eager to die so as to be

>rewarded with Paradise with its carnal pleasures. This is so unlike

>World War III (i.e. the Cold War) where the free world fought the

>repressive communists.

>

>They wanted to live and can be deterred by Mutually Assured

>Destruction (MAD). Now we are fighting a bunch of medieval mad men

>who are not afraid of MAD. What if they get hold of a nuclear

>device? There are loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. Pakistan

>has nukes and also plenty of terrorists and their supporters.

>The Leader of N Korea is unpredictable and may sell his nukes (he

>claims to have them) to terrorists. It would not be difficult for a

>terrorist to smuggle a nuke or two into any western country with

>their porous borders. If drug smugglers can bring in drugs by the

>tons, why can't terrorists bring in a dozen or more nukes?

>But there are also similarities with earlier World Wars. The chief

>similarity is that WW4 like WW3 (i.e. the Cold War) has an

>ideological component. In their own respective ideologies, both

>sides think that they are the good guys. On the one side are the

>people who believe that democracy with all its accompanying civil

>liberties is the best way for human beings to organize their

>societies.

>

>The other side spits at democracy and aims for the world to be ruled

>in accordance to Allah's laws. Democracy means that man is supreme

>because it is man who makes the laws through elections. The other

>side believes that it is God who must be supreme in the world.

>It is Allah's laws that must be obeyed and these laws were revealed

>to their Prophet 1,400 years ago. These militants believe that the

>world is divided into darul Harb and darul Islam. It is the duty of

>good Muslims to fight till the whole world becomes darul Islam.

>Allow me to call this ideology Islamism. For a more detailed insight

>into the roots of Islamic militancy, please read my

>article, "Looking for Saladdin".

>

>In World War III (ie the Cold War), there was also an ideological

>component. The Communists/Marxists preached an ideology of equality

>and class struggle to create a Communist utopia. This too had strong

>appeal for many people in the world. The US and its allies did its

>best to prove that this is false and tried to show why their vision

>of the future is better.

>

>But in World War IV, the US has abandoned ideological warfare. It

>restricts its criticism to only militant Islam and insists that they

>got their religion wrong. Bush tells us that Islam means peace. No

>doubt he has good reasons for doing so. He needs the help of

>moderate Muslim leaders like Musharraf and Megawati to pursue the

>terrorists. He cannot alienate them. The war in Afghanistan could

>not be fought without Musharraf's help. Perhaps there is still hope

>in some quarters that Islam can be reformed.

>

>But the boundary between Islam and Islamism is fuzzy. Most Muslims

>are not militants and most disapprove of the terrorist tactics

>pursued by the militants. But the teachings of Islam make it

>difficult for the moderate Muslims to wage war against the

>terrorists. It should be clear to a casual observer that the

>majority of Muslims will instinctively rally to support fellow

>Muslims when they come under attack no matter how unworthy or how

>violent these Muslims are. Thus when the US attacked Afghanistan,

>which was ruled by the brutal Taleban, Muslims all over the world

>protested. The same thing happened when Iraq was attacked.

>Saddam Hussein killed more fellow Muslims than archenemy Israel did,

>yet many Muslims volunteered to fight for him against Coalition

>forces. Have you wondered why there was hardly a peep from the

>Muslim world when Saddam slaughtered fellow Muslims? If Christians

>were like them, the US would not have interfered in Yugoslavia to

>save Muslim Bosnians from Christian Serbs.

>

>No doubt Muslim anger over the two wars will swell the ranks of

>Islamic terrorist organizations. They prefer a fellow Muslim (no

>matter how bad) to an infidel (no matter how good). The behavior of

>Muslims can be explained by the teachings of Islam, which puts

>Muslim brotherhood higher than what is right or wrong. Also, the

>Koran is peppered with verses like this one, which encourages enmity

>against infidels:

>

>"Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your

>friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks

>their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not

>guide the wrongdoers." See Koran 5:51.

>

>The best way to understand Islam is to view it as a warrior's faith

>designed to support Arab imperialism in the 7th, 8th and 9th

>centuries. (See my article, "Once were warriors".) That is why

>apostasy ranks so high as an offence and worthy of the death

>penalty. They see it as a defection to the enemy.

>

>That is also why they reflexively support monsters like Saddam in

>the Gulf War II and are so ready to believe the most preposterous

>conspiracy theories. To them, a Muslim in any confrontation with

>infidels can do no wrong and must be supported. Thus, even the

>moderates cannot be counted on to support the forces of democracy in

>World War IV.

>

>Islam also teaches Muslims to see themselves as part of a nation of

>Muslims who happen to live in different countries even in non-

>Muslim ones. Their loyalty to the nation state is subordinated to

>the loyalty to the Ummah. This is so even if they are second or

>third generation British or American or whatever. Each new

>generation will be taught by Islam to maintain its primary loyalty

>to the Ummah. Even new converts switch loyalty.

>

>See what happened to Walker, the American Taleban and that Sergeant

>in the 101st Airborne. Thus Muslims living in non-Muslim countries

>are a potential fifth column. (But they are not the only fifth

>column. The left wing in US and Europe with their PC (politically

>correct) ideology is also giving aid and comfort to the enemy just

>as they did in the Cold War.)

>

>In World War IV, the US has handicapped itself by making false

>declarations such as "Islam is peace". All world wars have at least

>three components the military, ideological and the economic. In

>World War III, the ideological component was more important than the

>military one. In World War I and II, it was the military component

>that was more important. Yet by praising Islam, Bush and Blair have

>already given up the ideological warfare without firing a shot.

>You cannot defeat Islamism without defeating Islam. It is like

>trying to fight Communism while praising Marxist economic theories!

>In the Cold War, the US and its allies did not hesitate to argue

>that Marxism is a false ideology. Marx's ideas are wrong and cannot

>lead mankind to a better future. The democratic world must make the

>same case against Islam.

>

>Otherwise, we cannot win without relying heavily on the military

>component, which means more bloodshed. Perhaps we cannot win at all.

>Remember what Sun Wu said in his classic, "The Art of War". The side

>with the higher moral standing is more likely to win. To do this, a

>leader must convince his people that their cause is just. You cannot

>persuade your people to make exertions if they do not understand

>what they are up against. Thus the burden of ideological warfare

>falls on groups like FFI.

>

>FFI people are a special breed. They are the "irregulars" in this

>ideological war. The "regulars" of course refer those soldiers in

>uniforms funded by taxpayer's money. "Irregulars" refer to fighters

>that sprang up from the grassroots like the minutemen in the US

>Revolutionary War against Britain or the Spanish guerrillas that

>fought Napoleon.

>

>Our weapon is the pen and not the sword. But we must get the message

>out to both Muslims and non-Muslims. The Soviet Union imploded

>because the people there realized that Communism does not work. The

>Voice of America, BBC and others understood the nature of the beast

>and brought the message home to the Communist bloc. We must do the

>same for Islam. We must convince Muslims that Islam is false just as

>Communism was false. Both cannot give mankind a better future.

>If we fail, WW4 could turn out to be a "hot" war like WW2 and not a

>relatively bloodless war like the Cold War. Nobody wants that. What

>would happen if a Muslim terrorist group gets hold of a nuclear

>device and destroys New York City? I think the US will retaliate by

>destroying Mecca because Islam cannot survive the destruction of

>Mecca.

>

>The city is so central to their faith. Without Mecca, a Muslim

>cannot practice the Haj one of the five pillars of Islam. Muslims

>are also required to pray five times a day facing Mecca. But praying

>five times a day to radioactive rubble somehow seems meaningless.

>They will question why Allah did not save the city with his angels

>and the loss of faith would be sudden. There is a precedent of sorts

>for this.

>

>In the WW2, the Japanese believed their Emperor to be a God. See my

>article, "The Mujahideen and the Samurai". They were even afraid to

>look at him lest they be blinded. So they turned their eyes away

>whenever he passed by in his motorcade. They also believed

>themselves to be descended from Gods and so are invincible. As what

>General Yamashita told a defeated British General after the fall of

>Singapore, "We are descended from the Gods. You are descended from

>monkeys. In a war between Gods and monkeys, the Gods will win."

>Perhaps it was their beliefs that gave them the courage to attack

>the US even though the US economy was 15 times the size of Japan's

>at that time. All these beliefs quickly crumbled when Japan was

>defeated and occupied. Today, no Japanese believes that their

>Emperor is a God. Of course I don't want to see any city getting

>nuked. Belief in Communism as a superior system crumbled without

>recourse to nuclear war. Islam may do the same if the message goes

>out to the Muslims in time.

>

>The third component of WW4 is economics. Oil is the only major

>commodity produced in the Muslim world. But it is a very essential

>item. Islamic radicalism started to rise after the 1973 oil embargo

>where oil prices quadrupled overnight. The wealthy Saudis began to

>spread their intolerant version of Islam by building Madrassahs and

>mosques around the world.

>

>Oil production is expected to peak sometime in the next 5 to 25

>years. When oil peaks, oil prices will rise sharply unless we find a

>replacement. Also the Gulf States will account for a larger

>percentage of world production putting the world in a precarious

>situation. World War IV can be won if we learn a lesson from World

>War I.

>

>In WW1, the British took a gamble and converted their navy to run on

>oil even though Britain did not produce oil. The German High Seas

>fleet was mainly a coal burning fleet. Oil made the British ships

>faster, had greater range and more quickly refueled. In 1916, the

>two navies met at the Battle of Jutland and the British won. The

>North Sea was under British control for the remainder of the war. To

>win WW4, we must find a replacement for oil just as the British

>replaced coal with oil.

>

>Bush is trying to lessen dependence on Saudi oil by liberating Iraqi

>oil. But in the long run, we need alternate source of energy.

>In the First World War, the free world fought against Royal

>dictators. In the Second World War, the democracies fought against

>Fascist right wing dictators. In the Cold War, the free world

>struggled against Communist dictators. Now in World War IV, freedom

>is again under threat from would be Islamist dictators. Victory

>would depend on how well we learn the lessons from the previous

>World Wars.

>

>

 

_______________

MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and more.

http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_customize