Since the discussion is on-topic, here is an intellectually honest look at the war on terrorism. This is an article I saved from 9/12/06.
The U.S. War, Five Years On
By George Friedman
It has been five years since the Sept. 11 attacks. In thinking about the course of the war against al Qaeda, two facts emerge pre-eminent.
The first is that the war has succeeded far better than anyone would have thought on Sept. 12, 2001. We remember that day clearly, and had anyone told us that there would be no more al Qaeda attacks in the United States for at least five years, we would have been incredulous. Yet there have been no attacks.
The second fact is that the U.S. intervention in the Islamic world has not achieved its operational goals. There are multiple insurgencies under way in Iraq, and the United States does not appear to have sufficient force or strategic intent to suppress them. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has re-emerged as a powerful fighting force. It is possible that the relatively small coalition force -- a force much smaller than that fielded by the defeated Soviets in Afghanistan -- can hold it at bay, but clearly coalition troops cannot annihilate it.
A Strategic Response
The strategic goal of the United States on Sept. 12, 2001, was to prevent any further attacks within the United States. Al Qaeda, defined as the original entity that orchestrated the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies in Africa, the USS Cole strike and 9/11, has been thrown into disarray and has been unable to mount a follow-on attack without being detected and disrupted. Other groups, loosely linked to al Qaeda or linked only by name or shared ideology, have carried out attacks, but none have been as daring and successful as 9/11.
In response to 9/11, the United States resorted to direct overt and covert intervention throughout the Islamic world. With the first intervention, in Afghanistan, the United States and coalition forces disrupted al Qaeda's base of operations, destabilized the group and forced it on the defensive. Here also, the stage was set for a long guerrilla war that the United States cannot win with the forces available.
The invasion of Iraq, however incoherent the Bush administration's explanation of it might be, achieved two things. First, it convinced Saudi Arabia of the seriousness of American resolve and caused the Saudis to become much more aggressive in cooperating with U.S. intelligence. Second, it allowed the United States to occupy the most strategic ground in the Middle East -- bordering on Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran. From here, the United States was able to pose overt threats and to stage covert operations against al Qaeda. Yet by invading Iraq, the United States also set the stage for the current military crisis.
The U.S. strategy was to disrupt al Qaeda in three ways:
1. Bring the intelligence services of Muslim states -- through persuasion, intimidation or coercion -- to provide intelligence that was available only to them on al Qaeda's operations.
2. By invading Afghanistan and Iraq, use main force to disrupt al Qaeda and to intimidate and coerce Islamic states. In other words, use Operation 2 to achieve Operation 1.
3. Use the intelligence gained by these methods to conduct a range of covert operations throughout the world, including in the United States itself, to disrupt al Qaeda operations.
The problem, however, was this. The means used to compel cooperation with the intelligence services in countries such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia involved actions that, while successful in the immediate intent, left U.S. forces exposed on a battleground where the correlation of forces, over time, ceased to favor the United States. In other words, while the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq did achieve their immediate ends and did result in effective action against al Qaeda, the outcome was to expose the U.S. forces to exhausting counterinsurgency that they were not configured to win.
Hindsight: The Search for an Ideal Strategy
The ideal outcome likely would have been to carry out the first and third operations without the second. As many would argue, an acceptable outcome would have been to carry out the Afghanistan operation without going into Iraq. This is the crux of the debate that has been raging since the Iraq invasion and that really began earlier, during the Afghan war, albeit in muted form. On the one side, the argument is that by invading Muslim countries, the United States has played into al Qaeda's hands and actually contributed to radicalization among Islamists -- and that by refraining from invasion, the Americans would have reduced the threat posed by al Qaeda. On the other side, the argument has been made that without these two invasions -- the one for direct tactical reasons, the other for psychological and political reasons -- al Qaeda would be able to operate securely and without effective interference from U.S. intelligence and that, therefore, these invasions were the price to be paid.
There are three models, then, that have been proposed as ideals:
1. The United States should have invaded neither Afghanistan nor Iraq, but instead should have relied entirely on covert measures (with various levels of restraint suggested) to defeat al Qaeda.
2. The United States should have invaded Afghanistan to drive out al Qaeda and disrupt the organization, but should not have invaded Iraq.
3. The United States needed to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan -- the former for strategic reasons and to intimidate key players, the latter to disrupt al Qaeda operations and its home base.
It is interesting to pause and consider that the argument is rarely this clear-cut. Those arguing for Option 1 rarely explain how U.S. covert operations would be carried out, and frequently oppose those operations as well. Those who make the second argument fail to explain how, given that the command cell of al Qaeda had escaped Afghanistan, the United States would continue the war -- or more precisely, where the Americans would get the intelligence to fight a covert war. Those who argue for the third course -- the Bush administration -- rarely explain precisely what the strategic purpose of the war was.
In fact, 9/11 created a logic that drove the U.S. responses. Before any covert war could be launched, al Qaeda's operational structure had to be disrupted -- at the very least, to buy time before another attack. Therefore, an attack in Afghanistan had to come first (and did, commencing about a month after 9/11). Calling this an invasion, of course, would be an error: The United States borrowed forces from Russian and Iranian allies in Afghanistan -- and that, coupled with U.S. air power, forced the Taliban out of the cities to disperse, regroup and restart the war later.
Covert War and a Logical Progression
The problem that the United States had with commencing covert operations against al Qaeda was weakness in its intelligence system. To conduct a covert war, you must have excellent intelligence -- and U.S. intelligence on al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11 was not good enough to sustain a global covert effort. The best intelligence on al Qaeda, simply given the nature of the group as well as its ideology, was in the hands of the Pakistanis and the Saudis. At the very least, Islamic governments were more likely to have accumulated the needed intelligence than the CIA was.
The issue was in motivating these governments to cooperate with the U.S. effort. The Saudis in particular were dubious about U.S. will, given previous decades of behavior. Officials in Riyadh frankly were more worried about al Qaeda's behavior within Saudi Arabia if they collaborated with the Americans than they were about the United States acting resolutely. Recall that the Saudis asked U.S. forces to leave Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Changing the kingdom's attitude was a necessary precursor to waging the covert war, just as Afghanistan was a precursor to changing attitudes in Pakistan.
Invading Iraq was a way for the United States to demonstrate will, while occupying strategic territory to bring further pressure against countries like Syria. It was also a facilitator for a global covert war. The information the Saudis started to provide after the U.S. invasion was critical in disrupting al Qaeda operations. And the Saudis did, in fact, pay the price for collaboration: Al Qaeda rose up against the regime, staging its first attack in the kingdom in May 2003, and was repressed.
In this sense, we can see a logical progression. Invading Afghanistan disrupted al Qaeda operations there and forced Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to step up cooperation with the United States. Invading Iraq reshaped Saudi thinking and put the United States in a position to pressure neighboring countries. The two moves together increased U.S. intelligence capabilities decisively and allowed it to disrupt al Qaeda.
But it also placed U.S. forces in a strategically difficult position. Any U.S. intervention in Asia, it has long been noted, places the United States at a massive disadvantage. U.S. troops inevitably will be outnumbered. They also will be fighting on an enemy's home turf, far away from everything familiar and comfortable. If forced into a political war, in which the enemy combatants use the local populace to hide themselves -- and if that populace is itself hostile to the Americans -- the results can be extraordinarily unpleasant. Thus, the same strategy that allowed the United States to disrupt al Qaeda also placed U.S. forces in strategically difficult positions in two theaters of operation.
Mission Creep and Crisis
The root problem was that the United States did not crisply define the mission in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Obviously, the immediate purpose was to create an environment in which al Qaeda was disrupted and the intelligence services of Muslim states felt compelled to cooperate with the United States. But by revising the mission upward -- from achieving these goals to providing security to rooting out Baathism and the Taliban, then to providing security against insurgents and even to redefining these two societies as democracies -- the United States overreached. The issue was not whether democracy is desirable; the issue was whether the United States had sufficient forces at hand to reshape Iraqi and Afghan societies in the face of resistance.
If the Americans had not at first expected resistance, they certainly discovered that they were facing it shortly after taking control of the major cities of each country. At that moment, they had to make a basic decision between pursuing the United States' own interests or defining the interest as transforming Afghan and Iraqi society. At the moment Washington chose transformation, it had launched into a task it could not fulfill -- or, if it could fulfill it, would be able to do so only with enormously more force than it placed in either country. When we consider that 300,000 Soviet troops could not subdue Afghanistan, we get a sense of how large a force would have been needed.
The point here is this: The means used by the United States to cripple al Qaeda also created a situation that was inherently dangerous to the United States. Unless the mission had been parsed precisely -- with the United States doing what it needed to do to disrupt al Qaeda but not overreaching itself -- the outcome would be what we see now. It is, of course, easy to say that the United States should have intervened, achieved its goals and left each country in chaos; it is harder to do. Nevertheless, the United States intervened, did not leave the countries and still has chaos. That can be said with hindsight. Acting so callously with foresight is more difficult.
There remains the question of whether the United States could have crippled al Qaeda without invading Iraq -- a move that still would have left Afghanistan in its current state, but which would seem to have been better than the situation now at hand. The answer to that question rests on two elements. First, it is simply not clear that the Saudis' appreciation of the situation, prior to March 2003, would have moved them to cooperate, and extensive diplomacy over the subject prior to the invasion had left the Americans reasonably convinced that the Saudis could do more. Advocates of diplomacy would have to answer the question of what more the United States could have done on that score. Now, perhaps, over time the United States could have developed its own intelligence sources within al Qaeda. But time was exactly what the United States did not have.
But most important, the U.S. leadership underestimated the consequences of an invasion. They set their goals as high as they did because they did not believe that the Iraqis would resist -- and when resistance began, they denied that it involved anything more than the ragtag remnants of the old regime. Their misreading of Iraq was compounded with an extraordinary difficulty in adjusting their thinking as reality unfolded.
But even without the administration's denial, we can see in hindsight that the current crisis was hardwired into the strategy. If the United States wanted to destroy al Qaeda, it had to do things that would suck it into the current situation -- unless it was enormously skilled and nimble, which it certainly was not. In the end, the primary objective -- defending the homeland -- was won at the cost of trying to achieve goals in Iraq and Afghanistan that cannot be achieved.
In the political debate that is raging today in the United States, our view is that both sides are quite wrong. The administration's argument for building democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan misses the point that the United States cannot be successful in this, because it lacks the force to carry out the mission. The administration's critics, who argue that Iraq particularly diverted attention from fighting al Qaeda, fail to appreciate the complex matrix of relationships the United States was trying to adjust with its invasion of Iraq.
The administration is incapable of admitting that it has overreached and led U.S. forces into an impossible position. Its critics fail to understand the intricate connections between the administration's various actions and the failure of al Qaeda to strike inside the United States for five years.
Replies
242
Beach FanaticAuthor
6th Gen, I still do not see how you disproved that the U.S is not dependent on Mideast Oil? What difference does it make if it's barrels or milk bottles, the numbers imported to the US speak for themselves.
You say we can get it elsewhere, then why aren't we?
The numbers don't speak for themselves when you look at where they stack up compared to the rest of our imports. And they don't address the new domestic supply discovered recently or the ANWR reserves. As for why we don't get it elsewhere, because, duh, it would cost more. I never denied that the loss of MidEast oil would sting (even though no one has been able to articulate how we are going to lose it), but it would not send the country to bread lines.
Beach Fanatic
Interesting article. My hope is that we can find the qualified person that we need and that will actually accept the job! Of course, it will take more than just one person to solve this problem ~ an administration that would listen would be a start.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html?hpid=topnews
SoWal Insider
You know...some of us could really learn something here if we didn't have to read through the name calling and posturing. I like the lively debates from all, until while reading, I am interrupted with personal attacks.I think wisdom, which you have obviously aquired, is much more useful than passion, because passion can be used for the wrong causes.
As for being young...I used to have strong opinions on many topics, and was convinced I had most of the answers back in the day. It is exhausting "knowing" everything. Like a fine wine, I have mellowed over the years. But, unfortunately I have lost alot of my passion as well....especially in politcs and have found myself with my head in the sand way too often. That said, I thank you all for debating the hard issues and making me think.
SoWal Insider
The numbers don't speak for themselves when you look at where they stack up compared to the rest of our imports. And they don't address the new domestic supply discovered recently or the ANWR reserves. As for why we don't get it elsewhere, because, duh, it would cost more. I never denied that the loss of MidEast oil would sting (even though no one has been able to articulate how we are going to lose it), but it would not send the country to bread lines.
You mean, the Chevron supply discovered last fall that won't be fully online until what, 6 or 7 years? It's good news, certainly (if used and allocated wisely). But please clarify how this is helpful in the short- or even mid-term.
needs to get out more
OK, to all of the kettles out there, I'll recap.
I asked Timmy to explain why the US will shoulder the blame for the Iraqis killing each other. He showed that Republicans believe Saddam was responsible to 9/11. Non sequitur.
Timmy insinuated that we were completely reliant on MidEast oil. I showed that we were not. He then put up numbers from Saudi freaking Arabia which verified my point, but he shifted the goalposts by trying to frame the argument in numbers of barrels. I asked why the Sauds are going to quit shipping oil our way and why the regime is going to fall. I then began to detail (sorry, Tootsie) some history and showed why the Sauds are holding their breath. In other words, I helped answer the question for Timmy. However, I didn't answer it in full because the regime isn't currently facing any real threats of coup d'?tat. He replied that since there are Shia in the Sauds' oil producing regions, we should all climb under our desk.
I said that Arabs are prone to violence. He said I was arrogant and ignorant. He then pointed to a non sequitur and shifted a separate argument to fit his needs after I disproved his first premise, that the US is dependant on MidEast oil. Then everyone (including you) clapped, agreed that I was ignorant, and said that he put me in my place. Chickpea called me names and told me that I should travel more when she obviously meant to post that I should learn more. I replied in kind as an example. I think that about sums it up.
young 6thgen, reading comprehension must not be a requirement with mensa, at 133, drunk. i have posted 3(three) times in this thread. once, to question the current validity of a dated article you posted, the second time to send a loving barb to mr. skunkape, and the third time just recently. although timmy is my friend, i have not jumped on any bandwagon on his behalf. he can do quite well on his own, as evidenced by this thread. you on the other hand, seem to be sinking with your arguments, having to prove yourself, and continually slashing at anybody who comes by. it is quite amusing to watch. maybe this is not the board for you, as we are not for you, so we must be wrong. the illuminati must have a board for you, somewhere. don't you need to start preparing for the prom?
SoWal Insider
The numbers don't speak for themselves when you look at where they stack up compared to the rest of our imports. And they don't address the new domestic supply discovered recently or the ANWR reserves. As for why we don't get it elsewhere, because, duh, it would cost more. I never denied that the loss of MidEast oil would sting (even though no one has been able to articulate how we are going to lose it), but it would not send the country to bread lines.
Here is an overview of US Petroleum Trade from 1973 (oil crisis) to Dec. 2006 from the Persian Gulf and OPEC. It's almost the same amount.
Looks to me that we have ourselves in the same conundrum again, and you can not refute that the 1973 oil crisis had no impact economically on our country.
Inserting a "duh" comment just re-asserts your childlike behaviour thus far on this Board.
Edited
Beach FanaticAuthor
John R. - Here is what you said.
"the burden of being so young and knowing everything must be very heavy. you ask to be engaged, yet follow up by throwing around insults like a child who hasn't gotten their way. quite sad, the (supposed)intellect is not matched by the tact. how's the pototo salad coming?"
The potato salad needs a little less mayo. You've repeatedly called me a child, you've asked if I should prepare for the prom (I did have a very attractive date so I had to look good), and you've said that instead of making an argument, I "slash at anyone who comes by". I briefed you on where we stood, without insulting anyone. Again you responded with a crux of an argument having to do with my age. Care to show me where my argument is sinking? Other than because you said so?
TFT,
Yes, it does take about that long to get oil online. The main reason is overregulation that could be expedited in time of crisis. You have a relatively small group of folks standing athwart development yelling "Stop!" as we've seen with ANWR. They wouldn't have the power they did should we face an immediate oil crisis. Again, I didn't say losing MidEast oil wouldn't sting, but we wouldn't have to send in Bruce Willis to save the world, either.
I'll ask again. How are we going to lose MidEast oil and how is the Saudi regime going to fall? You all are great at showing the loss' impact, but you haven't explained how we get to the loss.
"the burden of being so young and knowing everything must be very heavy. you ask to be engaged, yet follow up by throwing around insults like a child who hasn't gotten their way. quite sad, the (supposed)intellect is not matched by the tact. how's the pototo salad coming?"
The potato salad needs a little less mayo. You've repeatedly called me a child, you've asked if I should prepare for the prom (I did have a very attractive date so I had to look good), and you've said that instead of making an argument, I "slash at anyone who comes by". I briefed you on where we stood, without insulting anyone. Again you responded with a crux of an argument having to do with my age. Care to show me where my argument is sinking? Other than because you said so?
TFT,
Yes, it does take about that long to get oil online. The main reason is overregulation that could be expedited in time of crisis. You have a relatively small group of folks standing athwart development yelling "Stop!" as we've seen with ANWR. They wouldn't have the power they did should we face an immediate oil crisis. Again, I didn't say losing MidEast oil wouldn't sting, but we wouldn't have to send in Bruce Willis to save the world, either.
I'll ask again. How are we going to lose MidEast oil and how is the Saudi regime going to fall? You all are great at showing the loss' impact, but you haven't explained how we get to the loss.
Beach Lover
To focus on the war.... here is a breakdown of deaths!
http://icasualties.org/oif/Service.aspx
Clearly the army and marines are the people dying. If you further break it down it is the infantryman that bears the burden of the administrations bluster. And yet we spend half of what the entire planet spends on defense!
http://borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html
The infantryman isn't gettin the money ...So where is it going!
http://icasualties.org/oif/Service.aspx
Clearly the army and marines are the people dying. If you further break it down it is the infantryman that bears the burden of the administrations bluster. And yet we spend half of what the entire planet spends on defense!
http://borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html
The infantryman isn't gettin the money ...So where is it going!
Beach Fanatic
Whoa,
Ok I'm on my lunchbreak and trying very hard to go thru all the stuff in the thread. Not time to get to everything but I am so pleased at everybody who thanked me for bringing up my points. it has been my pleasure to offer whatever insight I have from my 8 years in the Mid-East. It is a VERY complicated situation.
I wanted to quickly post the following (portion) of a US Army assessment of current threats posed to the Saudi Arabia.
From the US Army?s Strategic Studies Institute Report 598 , dated March 2005
From the Section Entitled Saudi Security Concerns:
Doomsday scenarios to be avoided are:
? an assassination, or death and subsequent crisis in the royal
family leading to regime disintegration;
? a civil war between regime supporters and Islamist extremists,
and their respective tribal and familial allies;
? an unmanageable attack on the oil region; or
? a serious conflict with Saudi Arabia?s neighbors.
The danger of a civil war might arise from a situation in which
a segment of the Saudi government is radicalized from within. If
that were the case, then the alliances of security, military, or national
guard forces might be subverted, unlikely as this is at present. An
attack on the oil facilities is a serious concern. More than one-half
of Saudi Arabia?s oil reserves are located in just 8 of about 80 fields,
including Ghawar, which produces nearly half of the country?s
total production. Extremists attacked oil installations in 2004, and
Saudi security has foiled other and earlier attacks. The 2004 attacks
specifically targeted expatriates, but perhaps attacks will become
less specific as in Iraq where Iraqi crude exports were affected, and
pumping was deliberately halted in August 2004.125 Oil loading
facilities and the two main pipelines, the Petroline and the Abqaiq-
Yanbu natural gas liquids pipeline, as well as tankers, might also be
targeted. Strategic planners and military games must not predicate
easy victory; rather, the lessons of the Iraqi insurgency should be
carefully integrated into scenarios concerning the oil fields, which
are now protected by forces of over 30,000, and possess sophisticated
surveillance equipment. Still, the likelihood of infiltration by small
groups seeking to keep their cause alive or future coordinated
multiple attacks must be considered. Even the brief attack on the
U.S. consulate in Jeddah triggered a rise in oil prices, so the economic
impact of any such scenarios should also be assessed.
- I will let everyone digest that assessment and then we can discuss my opinion that Bush's md-east policies have increased the likelyhood of one of these scenarios occuring.
Ok I'm on my lunchbreak and trying very hard to go thru all the stuff in the thread. Not time to get to everything but I am so pleased at everybody who thanked me for bringing up my points. it has been my pleasure to offer whatever insight I have from my 8 years in the Mid-East. It is a VERY complicated situation.
I wanted to quickly post the following (portion) of a US Army assessment of current threats posed to the Saudi Arabia.
From the US Army?s Strategic Studies Institute Report 598 , dated March 2005
From the Section Entitled Saudi Security Concerns:
Doomsday scenarios to be avoided are:
? an assassination, or death and subsequent crisis in the royal
family leading to regime disintegration;
? a civil war between regime supporters and Islamist extremists,
and their respective tribal and familial allies;
? an unmanageable attack on the oil region; or
? a serious conflict with Saudi Arabia?s neighbors.
The danger of a civil war might arise from a situation in which
a segment of the Saudi government is radicalized from within. If
that were the case, then the alliances of security, military, or national
guard forces might be subverted, unlikely as this is at present. An
attack on the oil facilities is a serious concern. More than one-half
of Saudi Arabia?s oil reserves are located in just 8 of about 80 fields,
including Ghawar, which produces nearly half of the country?s
total production. Extremists attacked oil installations in 2004, and
Saudi security has foiled other and earlier attacks. The 2004 attacks
specifically targeted expatriates, but perhaps attacks will become
less specific as in Iraq where Iraqi crude exports were affected, and
pumping was deliberately halted in August 2004.125 Oil loading
facilities and the two main pipelines, the Petroline and the Abqaiq-
Yanbu natural gas liquids pipeline, as well as tankers, might also be
targeted. Strategic planners and military games must not predicate
easy victory; rather, the lessons of the Iraqi insurgency should be
carefully integrated into scenarios concerning the oil fields, which
are now protected by forces of over 30,000, and possess sophisticated
surveillance equipment. Still, the likelihood of infiltration by small
groups seeking to keep their cause alive or future coordinated
multiple attacks must be considered. Even the brief attack on the
U.S. consulate in Jeddah triggered a rise in oil prices, so the economic
impact of any such scenarios should also be assessed.
- I will let everyone digest that assessment and then we can discuss my opinion that Bush's md-east policies have increased the likelyhood of one of these scenarios occuring.
Beach Fanatic
Here is an overview of US Petroleum Trade from 1973 (oil crisis) to Dec. 2006 from the Persian Gulf and OPEC. It's almost the same amount.
Looks to me that we have ourselves in the same conundrum again, and you can not refute that the 1973 oil crisis had no impact economically on our country.
thanks Mango,
Actually the impact of the 1973 Oil Embargo was somewhat mutted by the fact that it was only a boycott of certain countries.
The loss of oil from the mid-east, or lets say just Saudi (as is discussed in the article I posted) would affect global supplies which would have a much stronger effect on our economy.
SoWal Insider
thanks Mango,
Actually the impact of the 1973 Oil Embargo was somewhat mutted by the fact that it was only a boycott of certain countries.
The loss of oil from the mid-east, or lets say just Saudi (as is discussed in the article I posted) would affect global supplies which would have a much stronger effect on our economy.
Did my best to find something relative to the last oil crisis. I was only 9 at the time, but was smart enough to know I didn't know everything then, still don't now, and never will.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
I just want everyone to know that I like achovies on my pizzia. I know this has nothing to do with the topic but I felt y'all needed a break (too much thinking).
SoWal Insider
I just want everyone to know that I like achovies on my pizzia. I know this has nothing to do with the topic but I felt y'all needed a break (too much thinking).
:lolabove: I like my pizzia plain.
Beach Fanatic
It has yet to cease to amaze me how you all love to pat yourselves on the back for "putting me in my place". Shut the hell up about that. All I ask is that you engage me on the issues, as I have repeatedly done you. If you were conservative, 30Gay would be jumping on your case for not making any points and doing nothing more than throwing around insults. Oh, also, I think you meant "latter" instead of "former", because I'm fairly well travelled. Chickpea, you are not very smart, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you choose platitudes rather than facts and you don't have the backbone to argue substance. See, it sucks, doesn't it? Now, pretend that you actually made a point before I said that.
6th gen,
I have no interest in insulting you but frankly I also have none in debating facts and/or opinions for that matter with you either because we are just too far apart - I feel you do not listen, are not interested in trying to learn anything new, have shown in your postings IMHO a tremendous lack of empathy towards others (do not recall from the top of my head what you recently posted about Palestinians!) and you feel I am ignoring your posting of facts, am incapable of structuring a coherent argument on your view of issues, and so on and so on...
Let's leave it as I am not smart. I am perfectly OK with you thinking this.
But to clarify one point: NO, I did mean the former as I stated earlier with respect to travel - I have no idea how much of the world you have seen - but here is what my almost 40 years in this world have taught me - in the educated and privileged circles I have moved in (and you may call me a snob), in the numerous countries I have visited and lived in, it is VERY rare to meet people who have traveled extensively, who have lived closely with jews, christians, muslims, etc.. who share your views on this particular topic. Full stop. Period.
Beach Fanatic
If you were conservative, 30Gay would be jumping on your case for not making any points and doing nothing more than throwing around insults.Hmmm, not true. Chickpea is clearly not conservative and yet I'm going to get on her case for making the point below:
"Let's leave it as I am not smart. I am perfectly OK with you thinking this."
...and the fact that she is not throwing around insults.
Oh well, the cleanup crew is here to do the dirty work; and from the smell of things 6thGen has been dropping a lot of poo poo......
Beach Fanatic
OK, to all of the kettles out there, I'll recap.
I asked Timmy to explain why the US will shoulder the blame for the Iraqis killing each other. He showed that Republicans believe Saddam was responsible to 9/11. Non sequitur.
Timmy insinuated that we were completely reliant on MidEast oil. I showed that we were not. He then put up numbers from Saudi freaking Arabia which verified my point, but he shifted the goalposts by trying to frame the argument in numbers of barrels. I asked why the Sauds are going to quit shipping oil our way and why the regime is going to fall. I then began to detail (sorry, Tootsie) some history and showed why the Sauds are holding their breath. In other words, I helped answer the question for Timmy. However, I didn't answer it in full because the regime isn't currently facing any real threats of coup d'?tat. He replied that since there are Shia in the Sauds' oil producing regions, we should all climb under our desk.
I said that Arabs are prone to violence. He said I was arrogant and ignorant. He then pointed to a non sequitur and shifted a separate argument to fit his needs after I disproved his first premise, that the US is dependant on MidEast oil. Then everyone (including you) clapped, agreed that I was ignorant, and said that he put me in my place. Chickpea called me names and told me that I should travel more when she obviously meant to post that I should learn more. I replied in kind as an example. I think that about sums it up.
That?s not a recap, but it?s damn good spin.
You have made a complete ass of yourself up and down this discussion by declaring yourself the winner of every argument in which you merely displayed your inability to see things within the context that they were presented. Clearly, no one is impressed.
?I asked Timmy to explain why the US will shoulder the blame for the Iraqis killing each other. He showed that Republicans believe Saddam was responsible to 9/11. Non sequitor.? Well given Timmy?s statement in Post #102 I?d say it was very sequitor. But that requires an ability to see things within their full context.
?Timmy insinuated that we were completely reliant on MidEast oil. I showed that we were not.? Uh no dumb ass, what Timmy said was ?Our economy is dependant on the flow of oil from that region.? And then went on to post figures showing that we import 2262 barrels a day from the Mid-East. How did you get from ?dependant? to ?completely dependant/reliant?? I think the fact that the US gets a substantial percentage of our oil from the region is evidence enough that we are ?dependant? on that oil to keep our economy humming along without major catastrophe.
Similarly, countering someone?s point with a flippant dismissal such as ?banal tripe?; ?does not constitute an impressive rebuttal. No one is left thinking ?Oh, wow 6th Gen has just decimated that argument.?
So 6thGen, when you live in a world where you just conveniently ignore the greater context of very complex issues, do not follow a linear logical progression of ideas (thank you UT for hitting that nail on the head), and generally spout off beliefs rather than evidence then you are bound to expose your ignorance in statements like????
?The Sauds are best when the Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other, as the savages in that region are wont to do
And that is why you were so hilariously ?put in your place?.
Beach Fanatic
I pointed out that the numbers of MidEast oil are lower than most believe and that it is a relatively small percentage.
What do "most believe?" Isn't this anecdotal?
What is a relatively small percentage? What is the magic 'percentage' that would correspond to a 'dependance'?
needs to get out more
John R. - Here is what you said.
"the burden of being so young and knowing everything must be very heavy. you ask to be engaged, yet follow up by throwing around insults like a child who hasn't gotten their way. quite sad, the (supposed)intellect is not matched by the tact. how's the pototo salad coming?"
The potato salad needs a little less mayo. You've repeatedly called me a child, you've asked if I should prepare for the prom (I did have a very attractive date so I had to look good), and you've said that instead of making an argument, I "slash at anyone who comes by". I briefed you on where we stood, without insulting anyone. Again you responded with a crux of an argument having to do with my age. Care to show me where my argument is sinking? Other than because you said so?
yes, you've stated your points ad nauseum. when others come with opposing views, we get the same rhetoric. maybe wrapped differently, but the same tripe. it is clear you will not move from your position. that's ok. but please don't verbally abuse others because they don't agree. and no, i will not go back and site examples for your benefit. one just needs to read to see them. there, i didn't mention you age or iq, ok?
Edited
Beach Fanatic
The leaders in that region have been pointing fingers at the Great Satan for years, so the anti-American polls are going to show consistency.
Is this so? Where are the figures/polls to back this up. Is your point that these numbers will be flat?
Or is your point that anti-Americanism is irrelevant, regardless of the amount?
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Although we were duped by the Iranians in the beginning, we had strong reason to believe that the mess in Iraq would not be what it is, and that a secular Shiite controlled Iraq would put pressure on the ayatollah and Iran to move towards a more secular government. We still expect Iran to move left, but it is taking longer and costing more.
How were we duped? Or was Bush duped?
What was our reason for believing thatthe mess in Iraq would not be what it is?
Why would a Shiite controlled Iraq put pressure on Iran? On what grounds do you expect a leftward shift in Iran?
Beach Fanatic
Also, UT, are you denying that the Middle East has a more violent history than, well, any civilization?
I'm not sure we can just let this one pass. Please provide evidence that the Middle East is a more violent civilization than any other in history.
Beach Fanatic
Some people may have been duped...or may have believed that what has happened in Iraq would not happen...but, thinking, educated, experienced, curious people who see the whole picture predicted exactly what has happened...
What is sad is that the people in positions of leadership (for whatever reason, and it really doesn't matter now) either allowed themselves to be duped or lead us into Iraq for reasons that are beyond comprehension.
Again, sadly, it is our military members and the Iraqi people who are paying the immediate price. It will be though, IMO, a very high price that all Americans will eventually pay, unless someone steps forward and stops this foreign policy blunder, and starts to turn America back to our historical values and standing in the world.
I hope for all our sakes, it is not already too late.
What is sad is that the people in positions of leadership (for whatever reason, and it really doesn't matter now) either allowed themselves to be duped or lead us into Iraq for reasons that are beyond comprehension.
Again, sadly, it is our military members and the Iraqi people who are paying the immediate price. It will be though, IMO, a very high price that all Americans will eventually pay, unless someone steps forward and stops this foreign policy blunder, and starts to turn America back to our historical values and standing in the world.
I hope for all our sakes, it is not already too late.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Well, great to hear from you all, and I'm glad the resident queen is back. I've been sorta busy today, and I won't be anywhere near a computer tomorrow, but I promise, Honest Injun, I'll get to this ASAP. I know each and every bloody one of you want a response from me, so I promise, like a one legged man in an ass kicking competition, I'll get to you if you are patient. In the meantime, I've posted a webpage for an expert on the tolerance on Muslims. And you can peruse the thread where I admit I'm wrong about something. Regards,
The Guy That Is Smarter And Younger Than You
http://www.danielpipes.org/
The Guy That Is Smarter And Younger Than You
http://www.danielpipes.org/
Beach FanaticAuthor
I'm not sure we can just let this one pass. Please provide evidence that the Middle East is a more violent civilization than any other in history.
Ah, hell, just one before I leave. This was too easy to skip. I can also name a plethora of books on the subject, but they don't quite get the point across like this does. Religion of Peace below.
[ame="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Nick+Berg+Video"]Nick Berg Video - Google Search[/ame]
Also, I'll pass on one more article if I can still find it.
Beach FanaticAuthor
This is pretty old, but it will give you something to chew on while I'm away from the computer. It will cause most of you to dismiss me as a nut, but I think you all think that anyway. I don't subscribe to everything here, but it is an interesting read.
A WORD ABOUT PROFESSOR MOSHE SHARON
Professor Moshe Sharon received his Doctorate in Medieval Islamic History from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has served as an Advisor on Arab Affairs to former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin as well as the Ministry of Defense. He currently lectures as professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AGENDA OF ISLAM: A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS
by PROFESSOR MOSHE SHARON,
Professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University, in Jerusalem
The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations?? between the civilization based on the Bible and the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear.
There is no fundamental Islam. "Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.
THE LANGUAGE OF ISLAM
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that using western culture to explain Islam is like describing a cricket game by a reporter in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.
DRIVING PRINCIPLES OF ISLAM
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God. But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohamed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behavior. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.
THE BIBLE
Let me explain the difference. The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.
In Judaism, it leads to national salvation ?? not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.
The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation which, from time to time, meet each other. But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.
Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honoring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.
THE ESSENCE OF ISLAM
Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world. Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation ?? namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."
The idea, then, is not that the whole world will become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world will be subdued under the rule of Islam. When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years (640) the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.
Mohammed held that all the Biblical prophets were Moslems. Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.
Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.
THE BIBLE VERSUS THE KORAN
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran? Mohamed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].
Nevertheless, the laws a very clear ?? Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.
ISLAMIC RULE AND THE JIHAD
What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.
A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Ch istians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.
TWO HOUSES
The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it.
The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.
ISLAMIC LAW
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law. However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.
There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.
These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.
ISLAM AND TERRITORY
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic. This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear: territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.
The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.
Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important ?? this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.
ISLAM AND PEACE
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem. With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution ?? a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come when the Islamic side wins.
The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel. Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace ??you wouldn't believe what you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science-fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.
A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, "That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."
Whatever the prophet is supposed to have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, "Remember the story of Hodaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.
Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].
In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.
CEASE-FIRE AS A TACTICAL CHOICE
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing: when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice. Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg.
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, "What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics." Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing: we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.
Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than a temporary cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and the Israeli's side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State have been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.
WHEREVER YOU HAVE ISLAM, YOU WILL HAVE WAR
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization. What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?
ISLAMIC WAR BY INFILTRATION
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but also the method of war by infiltration. One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic wa ?? inside the U.S.
END OF DAYS
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah ?? peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed ?? a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.
Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.
I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory. Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.
The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. The Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY TO END THIS DANCE OF WAR?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war. The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.
But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.
And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.
I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.
A WORD ABOUT PROFESSOR MOSHE SHARON
Professor Moshe Sharon received his Doctorate in Medieval Islamic History from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has served as an Advisor on Arab Affairs to former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin as well as the Ministry of Defense. He currently lectures as professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AGENDA OF ISLAM: A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS
by PROFESSOR MOSHE SHARON,
Professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University, in Jerusalem
The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations?? between the civilization based on the Bible and the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear.
There is no fundamental Islam. "Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.
THE LANGUAGE OF ISLAM
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that using western culture to explain Islam is like describing a cricket game by a reporter in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.
DRIVING PRINCIPLES OF ISLAM
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God. But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohamed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behavior. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.
THE BIBLE
Let me explain the difference. The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.
In Judaism, it leads to national salvation ?? not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.
The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation which, from time to time, meet each other. But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.
Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honoring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.
THE ESSENCE OF ISLAM
Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world. Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation ?? namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."
The idea, then, is not that the whole world will become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world will be subdued under the rule of Islam. When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years (640) the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.
Mohammed held that all the Biblical prophets were Moslems. Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.
Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.
THE BIBLE VERSUS THE KORAN
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran? Mohamed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].
Nevertheless, the laws a very clear ?? Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.
ISLAMIC RULE AND THE JIHAD
What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.
A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Ch istians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.
TWO HOUSES
The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it.
The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.
ISLAMIC LAW
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law. However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.
There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.
These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.
ISLAM AND TERRITORY
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic. This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear: territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.
The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.
Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important ?? this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.
ISLAM AND PEACE
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem. With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution ?? a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come when the Islamic side wins.
The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel. Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace ??you wouldn't believe what you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science-fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.
A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, "That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."
Whatever the prophet is supposed to have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, "Remember the story of Hodaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.
Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].
In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.
CEASE-FIRE AS A TACTICAL CHOICE
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing: when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice. Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg.
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, "What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics." Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing: we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.
Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than a temporary cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and the Israeli's side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State have been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.
WHEREVER YOU HAVE ISLAM, YOU WILL HAVE WAR
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization. What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?
ISLAMIC WAR BY INFILTRATION
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but also the method of war by infiltration. One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic wa ?? inside the U.S.
END OF DAYS
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah ?? peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed ?? a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.
Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.
I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory. Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.
The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. The Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY TO END THIS DANCE OF WAR?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war. The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.
But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.
And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.
I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.