War on Terror

By -

by Bob Clasen

Currently, the Administration is trying to wage a War on Terror. But Terror is not an entity. It is a method of warfare, like automatic weapons, or aircraft. One cannot wage war against a technique or technology.

I suggest that what is needed is not more soldiers to be sent to Iraq, but greater clarity of thought.

Who, exactly, is our enemy? It would appear that one of America's enemies is Fundamentalist Islam. Why is Fundamentalist Islam our enemy? Because Fundamentalist Islam defines unbelievers as infidel and urges its members to wage war against them. This is the doctrine of jihad. The problem is not with extremisist who hijacked a peaceful religion. The problem is the doctrine of Jihad, or Holy War is found throughout the Koran. This doctrine can be re-interpreted by modern liberal types as a psychological warfare against one's own sins, but that is not how many people throughout history have interpreted it. Anyone who is given to literal interpretation of the Koran will be tempted to engage in violence on behalf of Allah.

If you wish to research this issue, a convenient site is here which documents 164 jihad references in the Koran. The only peace I find in Islam from my readings of the Koran would be the peace that results after every infidel has been conquered and killed or subjugated. That would assume that the inter faith fighting between different sects of Islam such as the Sunnis and Shiites is also brought to a halt somehow. The truth is that Islam is a violent religion because fighting for Allah is praised and repeatedly recommended in the Koran.

Therefore, whether the Sunnis or Shias win in Iraq, if they are Islamic, if they support jihad against the infidel United States, it makes little difference to the United States. This is why supporting one side against the other is a waste of American blood and resources. So long as Shia is fighting Sunni, they are distracted from coming over here and fighting us.

Perhaps this is too simple?

Comments

J.D. Kessler said…
Generally I concur. However, the thinking we need to be doing is how to defuse the Islamic Fundamentalist Time bomb. The attitudes of under thirty male Muslims appears to be totally at odds with anything other than lashing out at the West. Can they be "bought"? Would economic prosperity help their attitude towards the west.

Did you see the poll of American Muslims and their attitudes about suicide bombing.
4:05 PM
Bob Cat said…
Bob replies:

I did see the poll of American Muslims willing to support suicide bombs. I am not surprised.

I don't think that "they" can be "bought." The problem is religion. The teaching that martyrdom is noble and beautiful and will result in an instantaneous trip to paradise. The teaching that Jihad is enjoined upon all good Moslems. It is difficult even to see how their economy can prosper under the yoke of religious fundamentalism. Look what has happened to the Iranian economy since the fundamentalist have taken power.

The battle is intellectual and rational. The problem with the west is that we have this axiom that all religions are to be equally respected. Who are we to judge the beliefs of another people. The sacred icon of multiculturalism. If all religions must be respected, then Osama Bin Laden must be respected. And voodoo. And human sacrifice.

A religion that call for obedience based upon nothing more than "faith" deserves no respect, no matter how noble it's teachings. Pure faith which "leaps" beyond reason can leap in any direction, sane or insane. Giving up reason is itself a branch of insanity.

Any religion that abjures reason is dangerous. The battle is between the forces of reason and the forces of superstitioin. If so, it will be a long battle, for the forces of reason do not look very formidable in the political arena. Nor are there many loyal and devoted to the cause of Reason.
11:39 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How About Kids Accounts?

By -
posted by Bob Clasen Mr. President, Let's Share the Wealth By DAVID BROOKS Published: February 8, 2005 President Bush said he was open to other people's ideas on how to fix Social Security, so I hope he'll listen to mine. My idea starts with a blunt political observation. Personal accounts - as they are currently envisioned - are going to be hard to pass. Every important Democrat opposes them. Jim McCrery, the Republican who is chairman of the House Social Security subcommittee, says the president's plan will have to fundamentally change if it is to have a chance. So my idea is this: If the president's current version of personal accounts stalls, he should consider another version - one that is more likely to win broad support, and that achieves all the goals of an "ownership society." The personal accounts I'm thinking of would be inspired by a proposal called KidSave, which was floating around in the late 1990's. KidSave wa...
Read more

Democrat Party: "Dependency-Bureaucracy Complex"

By -
by George Will ____________________________ If Sept. 11 had never happened -- if debate about domestic policy had not been drowned out by the roar of war -- the potential domestic ramifications of this election would give it unusual nation-shaping power. To understand why is to understand some of the Democratic rage about the specter of a second term for George W. Bush. He has a multifaceted agenda for weakening crucial components of the Democratic Party, factions that depend on cosseting by the federal government. Consider trial lawyers and organized labor. John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as running mate was a blunder, and not just because Kerry probably will lose Edwards's North Carolina. The Edwards selection ratifies a provocative fact: trial lawyers have become the Democrats' most important faction. This has energized small-business owners, the self-employed, doctors and others who worry that they live one lawsuit away from ruin. Such people, now arous...
Read more

Victory in Fallujah

By -
_____________________ by Ralph Peters New York Post November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists. Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts. The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday. On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis...
Read more