 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
2004.09.28 — "A wider campaign to defuse the appeal of Islamic extremism … [has] become a central issue in the U.S. presidential campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry says the Bush Administration's actions in the world since 9/11, particularly the invasion of Iraq, have resulted in an increase of animosity and anger and encouraged the recruitment of terrorists" (Time, 2004.09.20).
This is a classic example of the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (loosely: it comes after, therefore it is a consequence and the antecedent is the cause). However, the fact is that the animosity and anger were present long before 9/11, much less the invasion of Iraq. Kerry's statement is misleading political propaganda. There is another, principle, reason – nearly always mentioned nowadays (a critical improvement) but still relegated to an afterthought – for Islamic antipathy toward non-Muslims, and this principle reason must be addressed in order to resolve the conflict. A much deeper understanding of the root cause of the clash, by a majority of the global non-Muslim public and media, is required.
There is also a serious logical flaw in the analysis of reporters like Bill O'Reilly, who assert that the choice in the upcoming presidential elections is whether they American people believe things are getting better under Bush. This is a logical fallacy. Things getting better THAN WHAT??? That's just one of the crucial questions. If the upcoming presidential election can be boiled down to a simple question, as Bill O'Reilly suggested, then the real question is whether Americans believe things would be better or worse under Bush than under Kerry. Things are likely to get worse no matter which one of them becomes president.
So the real question is: how much worse will it get with Bush as president compared to if Kerry is president? Kerry sends the message to terrorists that victory is near, to America that Europe and the U.N. will dictate American policy and interests and his almost daily flip-flop on every issue sends the message to both that he will cave if they just apply enough pressure. And his record is that he will. So things may be getting worse under Bush, but that may only mean that things will get even worse, a whole heckuva lot worse, under Kerry.
Fighting terror successfully today has one, and only one, successful model. After two years of fighting the worst terrorism scourge in the world, in a conflict that has persisted since the founding of the State of Israel, Islamic terrorists are on their heels and their effectiveness has been drastically curtailed. Nothing else in the world has worked against Islamic terrorism. This has proven that the military solution is the only effective solution. Another, similar and reinforcing, model is rapidly taking shape: Afghanistan.
It is widely acknowledged, however, that the military solution has an inherent weakness: it is temporary. Realizing this, pundits have traditionally "assumed" a political solution is the only potentially enduring solution. However, for the reasons below, a political solution is even less effective than the military solutions and a lasting solution is found elsewhere.
Increasing Islamic hostility, bobble-heads assert, "is being propelled in part by anger at the U.S.'s staunch support of Israel's stance toward the Palestinians, contempt for the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq, and opposition to crackdowns on militancy carried out by previously permissive governments like those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia." (ibid.). But there's also alternative, non-Muslim, perspective of this. 'You get in debates about Islam with other Muslims, about the need to modernize, to be more tolerant, less anti-Semitic, and people say to me, 'Yes, but look at what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians or look at what the U.S. is doing in Iraq…' " (ibid.). Yes, do look! Islamic hostility is a consequence of Israeli and American kuph'rs defending themselves against Islamic terrorists bent on subjugating kuph'rs, blowing up or otherwise killing Jewish kuph'rs and restoring the Islamic "Golden Era" under a worldwide Islamic Caliphate [Di"ash (ISIL / IS)]!!!
One of the most important factors is that the great majority of Islamic terrorists are Arabs – despite "Only 18% of the world's Muslims are ethnic Arabs. In Southeast Asian countries with sizable Muslim populations, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, radical Islam does not command a wide following." (ibid.). Within this Arab sphere, Saudi madarasahs are one of the most explosive hatcheries of terrorists. "A U.S. State Department report on global terrorism warned last year that Muslim communities in the region are vulnerable to the 'radical influences' of extremists because of the substantial financing that Islamic schools and mosques continue to receive from wealthier fundamentalists." (ibid.).
To worsen matters, the solution cannot be achieved by Muslims: "Saudi Arabia [is] the world's biggest financier of fundamentalist Islam… the kingdom's government has effectively been joined at the hip with the austere, deeply conservative brand of Islam known as Wahhabism. Modern day oil riches, as well as the al Saud family's desire to remain in power, mean that Wahhabi clerics have had both the freedom and the funds to spread their intolerant and anti-Semitic creed with impunity, pouring billions into the establishment of Wahhabi madarasahs and mosques around the world… The voices of moderation… have almost no public spaces in the kingdom – no broadcast networks, no radio stations and few mosques – in which to voice their views… The failure of the Saudis to rein in such elements could prove disastrous were the clerics ever to decide to incite their followers to rise up against the regime, something bin Laden has called for" (ibid.). [Note also that Salafis are non-Saudi Wahhabi Muslims.]
The converse of this is that any attempt to rein in such elements would prove disastrous because the clerics would decide to incite their followers to rise up against the regime. That is exactly why the Saudi regime does little or nothing to combat terrorism. Moderate voices in Islam are permanently marginalized and fighting terrorism is left to non-Muslims. "In Western Europe as well, experts say, while the number of the region's estimated 12.5 million Muslims who have joined extremists groups has not increased significantly, fundamentalists 'have adopted a higher profile, and become more influential…" (ibid.).
The stakes are enormous. "In three Islamic countries whose destinies are vital to the security of the U.S. – Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Ayatullah's Iran – the political future is very much up for grabs." (ibid.).
"In the past three years, the spiritual appeal of fundamentalism has been buttressed by a political imperative: defending Islam against the U.S." (ibid.). This is another example of the ever-popular post hoc ergo propter hoc. The assertion diverts attention from the "spiritual appeal of fundamentalism having been buttressed by" the glorious victory, in their view, of Islam on 9/11, filling their heads with visions of the restoration of the 'Golden Era' of Islam's Caliphate [Di"ash (ISIL / IS)]. Since well before the invasion of Iraq, this has been, and remains, the principle reason for Muslim antipathy toward kuph'r America: they have a vision of Islamic makhdiism to restore a world Islamic Caliphate [Di"ash (ISIL / IS)].
" 'Our policies are objectionable to large parts of the Arab world,' says a senior State Department official." (ibid.). Wrong. As kuph'rs, the citizenry of U.S., and even more so Jews of Israel, is objectionable to the Muslim Arab world. Citing policies is nothing more than an insidious Arab ploy to persuade kuph'rs that kuph'rs aren't entitled to defend themselves and to undertake policies more compatible with the eventual Islamic domination of the world and their setting up of a global Caliphate [Di"ash (ISIL / IS)].
"A poll of British Muslims in March found that 13% believe that 'further attacks by al-Qaeda or similar organizations on the U.S.A.' would be justified. In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, only 15% view the U.S. favorably, compared with 61% in 2002. In Saudi Arabia, according to a recent poll, 48.7% of the population sympathizes with the aims of bin-Laden." (ibid.). These polls prove the ineffectuality of the world's current approach to PR war against Islamic terrorism.
The "spiritual appeal of fundamentalism" is the key: "radical Islam holds, for some, the attractions of any other faith: a world view, a strict discipline and order to life, a reason to live and an alluring vision of an afterlife." (ibid.). These are precisely the areas in which the war against Islam has, so far, been lost by default, and the only formula for an ultimate victory over Islamic terror. Not one cent of the $86 million budget for Muslim-directed diplomacy addresses the first one of these key elements; and to do so would be perceived as a Christian America contradicting her own Constitution by combining church and state in a crusade against Islam.
Islam has America by the ideological jugular. Religiously decreed by Islam to be kuph'rs, while internally constrained by America's own principle of separation of church and state, America is Constitutionally prohibited from organizing to fight back ideologically with a polemic against the Islamic religious decrees. America also seems to be in a worse state than the United Kingdom. While prominent UK Muslim clerics went to Iraq to try to obtain the release of British hostages held by Islamic terrorists, American Muslim clerics have made no discernible effort to demonstrate that they are loyal to America rather than Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the weight of evidence suggests that, in the main, the opposite is the case. America's only answer is to indirectly strengthen and encourage private funding of religious moderates who have this solution.
Islam, and Muslims, is so fearful of its intractable theological flaws that criticism of Islam by Muslims often results in a death fatwa. (kuph'rs, especially Jews – like me – seem to be under a death fatwa in any case.) Yet, the simple truth is that Islam relies on the
Islam purports to accept Isa of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), as a non-divine prophet, and also the Isa said in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), "I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me." So, Islam is a second order displacement theology, contradicting itself doubly (in also invalidly displacing Christianity. If, on the other hand, Islam holds that Isa is a liar then Islam accepts a false prophet. Either way, again, Islam is proved to be false.
Arabs claim that Arabic is older than Hebrew and that Arabic, not Hebrew, was the language of
Islam also purports to be the religion of goddess al-Ilat, prototype of Allah, in a temple in Mecca that Arabs refurbished into their Kaaba – see photos]. Nonetheless, an old tradition of monotheism, or at least a belief in a supreme deity, existed… Muhammad's central teachings were the goodness, omnipotence, and unity of God and the need for generosity and justice in human relations. Important elements from Judaism and Christianity were incorporated into the emergent religion, but it was rooted in the pre-Islamic Arabic tradition; such central institutions as the pilgrimage and the Kaaba shrine were absorbed, in modified form, from Arabic [idolatry]" ("Islam," Microsoft Encarta).
The Arab Muslim dependence upon denying facts shatters credulity in its absurdity. From Arafat to the street, Muslim Arabs deny that the stones of the
Bottom line: Islam is a syncretism of Jewish
 |
|
 |