Note (09NOV2015): On 31OCT2015, a Mohammedan group calling itself “ISIS” apparently exploded a bomb aboard a Russian airliner departing from Egypt. The blast then resulting crash killed all aboard. Economically, how much did the bombing cost the perpetrators? Almost nothing. How much will it cost Egypt? Hundreds of millions. A good bang for the buck.
On 11SEP2001, Mohammedans from Saudi Arabia destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City, killing thousands. Economically, how much did the bombing cost the perpetrators? Almost nothing. How much has it cost these United States of America — economically and politically? Billions of dollars spent. Basic civil liberties lost. Another good bang for the buck.
Whether in the form of ISIS, al-Qaeda, Iran, or sundry other entities, Mohammedanism represents a clear and present danger to the rest of the world. Yet, the powers-that-be in the West are responding in a manner best characterized as suicidal. Worse, in the West many people are promoting and celebrating their own demise.
Science would say that such actions represent behavior under the control of ideological antecedents rather than realistic consequences. Ultimately, consequences always rule.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” -John Heywood (1546)
In homage to Mr. Heywood, this posting will run another week.
“Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.” -President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919)
Mohammedan migrants illegally are flooding into Europe by the hundreds of thousands. Their migrations amounts to a massive, unarmed invasion. How many are so-called jihadists no one knows, and no official asks.
Can Mohammedanism (aka/Islam) be the friend of Christianity, Judaism, other religions, and even atheism? In this new age of “social media”, can the phony “friending” of a sworn enemy become the basis of a truly effective foreign policy? If not, what’s the alternative?
“None so blind as those that will not see.” -Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
Judaism and Christianity
After some considerable dispute, The Hebraic Bible, its books later rearranged by Christians into “The Old Testament”, became the foundation of The New Testament.(1) In fact, without that juxtaposition between old and new, The New Testament would have lost much of its meaning. Accordingly, pursuant to Christian dogma as posited by St. Augustine (354-430 AD), Christians should tolerate Judaism and Jews albeit in a subordinate position — a policy later adopted by Mohammedans.
Jesus of Galilee was born a Jew; lived as a Jew; and, according to history, died as a Jew. Reflected in the writings of the first disciples, he was a reformer, at the least; and a human-like, earthly representation of God Himself, at the most. As either, it is written that he preached peace.
Despite instances such as the Christian Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Nazis’ massacres, the essence of Christianity, as preached by its progenitor, is peace. For Judaism, less so. Furthermore, The Old Testament is based upon justice before mercy and consequences before intent. The New Testament is based upon mercy before justice and intent before consequences. The followers of Jesus’s preaching, thereby, are to act mercifully even to non-believers even though there may be some passages suggesting the contrary.
Like Moses but unlike Jesus, Mohammed of Mecca (570-632 AD) is believed by the followers of his preaching, as written in The Koran, to have been not an earthly representation of God but merely a human prophet; in this case, transmitting the word of God (“Allah”) as dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel in 610 AD. Like The New Testament, The Koran ostensibly is based upon The Hebraic Bible with direct references to Abraham. Unlike The New Testament, however, The Koran explicitly rejects its immediate predecessor, Christianity, and specifically vilifies both Jesus and his mother, Mary.
“Those who say, ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth split asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one!” -The Recital (The Koran), Mary: 19:88
The Koran varies in its prescription for the treatment of non-believers, referred to as “infidels” and “idolaters” . The chapter (“surah”) entitled Repentance, nevertheless, is consistently clear that it is the duty of every Mohammedan to slay every “idolater” while making some allowance for “People of the Book”; namely, practicing Christians and Jews. At best, both groups are to be tolerated in a subordinate position, and they are to pay tribute to the ruling Mohammedan theologians; at worst, they are to be slain.
“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush for them everywhere. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.” -The Recital (The Koran), Repentance 9:5
It should be of more than passing interest among the increasing number of Christians and Jews who have rejected their own, respective religions in favor of secular relativism and even outright atheism that Mohammedanism shows them no tolerance, whatsoever. They are regarded with revulsion as no different from pagans. The consequence of their apostasy is execution.
“The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Proof 98:1
Whereas Jesus preached peace, Mohammed preached war; the bleating to the contrary of President Bush the Second and other Western apologists who never cite Koranic text, notwithstanding. In fact, the Mohammedan religion became the rationale for extensive military conquests by invading Arabs. In The Chambers, Repentance, and Victory, the text repeatedly addresses “Arabs of the desert”, whose tribes officially accepted Mohammedanism in 631 AD.
Barack Hussein Obama II and the rest of the pro-Mohammedan apologists talk of friendship and alliances; however, for a Mohammedan to accept an “infidel” as a friend or ally is to enter into an unacceptable relationship. At best, friendship is discouraged unless it be duplicitous.
“Believers, do not choose the infidels rather than the faithful as friends. Would you give God clear evidence against yourselves?” -The Recital (The Koran), Women 4:145
“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Table 5:51
It is said that many roads lead to the House of God. The Mohammedans don’t believe it. Its Western apologists seem to believe that promoting mutual respect, understanding, and acceptance will open the doors of Mohammedanism to welcome non-believers as honored guests onto its territory and into its affairs.
Yet, for a Mohammedan to allow “infidels” even to enter mosques, let alone to visit the City of Mecca, never mind to occupy Mohammedan territory, is to countenance a reprehensible anathema. Apparently, President Bush the First and his advisors failed to appreciate this concept when they betrayed our erstwhile ally, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, then established military bases on “sacred” land, especially Saudi Arabian. The consequence? The rise of Al-Quaeda. (See “Categories/Foreign Relations/Did Bush Burn The Koran?”)
“None should visit the mosques of God except those who believe in God and the Last Day, attend to their prayers and render the alms levy and fear none but God. These shall be rightly guided.” -The Recital (The Koran), Repentance 9:18
For a Mohammedan to accept an “infidel” as an equal is an unforgivable sin constituting apostasy. In Mohammedan dogma, the only sin worse than non-belief is apostasy. The Koran instructs believers to deal harshly with non-believers.
“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Spoils 8:36
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.” -The Recital (The Koran), Repentance 9:123
The Koran renders the term “fanatical Islamist” a redundancy. By its very nature, the religion demands intolerance, violence, and militancy. “Fanatical Islamists” only are practicing their religion as codified by Mohammed himself in The Koran. Furthermore, they are displaying the courage of their convictions unlike an increasing number of weak-willed Westerners who have neither courage nor convictions.
The current Mohammedan invasion of Europe, albeit unarmed, reflects these facts, even be it denied by Western politicians and apologists. How many actually have read The Koran? Do any recall the words of the King of Morocco, who boasted that the Mohammedans would conquer Europe via the womb? Are we witnessing blind ignorance, inconsistent “political correctness”, or blatant cowardice?
Admittedly, not all practicing Mohammedans may accept literally every word in The Koran. Even so, given that Mohammedans believe that it’s virtuous to lie in the name of Allah, how are we “infidels” to discriminate between those who do and those who do not?(2)
Besides, what percentage of “moderate Muslims”, while remaining non-violent, also remain sympathetic towards violent jihad? Estimates vary widely between 4% and 80% and depend upon country and source of data; i.e., nobody really knows. Moreover, how can a Mohammedan become “moderate” without rejecting much, if not most, of The Koran and, thereby, essentially rejecting his religion?
Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.” Judge our behavior by its consequences.
discrimination n.: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary(3)
Science says, “Every discrimination carries with it an implied set of instructions.”
“The traffic-light is red!”
“The house is on fire!”
“The Democratic-Republican establishment is destroying the nation!”
So, what are we “infidels” to do? Declare war against all Mohammedans? Declare war against only violent Mohammedans while tolerating the self-proclaimed “moderates”? Treat those who engage in violence as prisoners of war? Treat those who engage in violence as criminals? Perhaps, pursuant to The Koran, submit to Mohammedanism ourselves although doing so would raise the question of which sect to choose and which sects to fight?
Critics of Obama’s policy toward Mohammedan nations claim that his policy has failed as confirmed by current events in the Middle East and Africa as well as Afghanistan. With his failure has come rising anti-Americanism and rising threat to these United States of America. Apparently, “friending” has failed. In fact, Obama’s critics claim that all talk has failed. Even bribery has failed.
So, what do they propose instead? Total withdrawal? Total warfare? Something in-between? Actually, all of them and none of them.
With regard to total withdrawal, to paraphrase Shakespeare’s Macbeth, are we Americans too deep in blood simply to withdraw? If so, what specifically to do? Let’s analyze the situation-in-question from the orientation of biobehavioral science not politics nor ideology.
Analysis and Resolution
Context: A worldwide, popular religion based upon preaching intolerance, violence, and military conquest.
Antecedents: Attacks against us “infidels” and our property, including “U.S. persons” as our own tax-collectors refer to us.
Behavior: Until recently, primarily verbal by our politicians as well as mostly ambiguous and confusing after entering into two, losing, undeclared wars in defiance of our own Constitution. Now, once again slipping by degree towards another, undeclared war although, once again, no American interests are under attack.
Consequences: Harm to American and other Western persons, property, and interests — harm increasing in frequency and magnitude.
Problem: A deficit of effective behavior by these United States of America and others to reverse the current course of events adverse to our interests and well-being.
Goal: To have controlled or, hopefully, eliminated the current Mohammedan threat and future ones, including unarmed invasions and armed attacks.
Measurement: Frequency and magnitude of instrumental and verbal attacks by Mohammedans against the interests of Americans and other “infidels”.
Currently, there is no organized plan. So, what could be one? Whatever it be, its consequences must be compelling and convincing to all Mohammedans.
“Sharp wounds cleanse away evil;
So do stripes that reach the inward parts.”
– The Hebraic Bible, Proverbs 20:30
One option could be the following:
1) Notwithstanding the so-called agreement with a fanatical Iran, actually a treaty explicitly opposed by 214 flag-ranked military officers, Mohammedan aggression represents a most immediate and serious threat to our way of life and our lives themselves. Despite our refusal to believe Iranian words as confirmed by Iranian deeds, Iran explicitly is bent upon our destruction. Their stated goal is to have a Mohammedan flag flying above the White House.
The benefit of the so-called agreement is problematic; the risk frighteningly humongous. There is evidence that North Korea is working with Iran to assist its development of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the so-called agreement does not address even Iranian nuclear development outside Iran.(4)
While dwindling time remains before Iran has “the bomb”, we can launch an immediate airborne attack against its nuclear installations. Forget NATO — a sick joke. Leave Israel out of the action in order to minimize the related issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Such an attack would send a real and, hopefully, convincing message to all Mohammedans. It would be followed by Obama requesting a Declaration of War against Iran, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Why not a Declaration before the attack? Politicians cannot be trusted with secrets. As the saying went during World War II, loose lips sink ships; and, paraphrasing Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Would there be Mohammedan reprisals? Probably. How would we deal with them?
Inform the world that any act of violence against these United States perpetrated, sponsored, or supported by any nation will be regarded as an act of war and dealt with accordingly. Bombs and bullets may prove more effective than “friending”. This time we will fight to win — completely and totally.
Unlike the shrinking Christianity in a divided North America and a dessicating Europe, Mohammedanism is a growing religion. It’s not going away; neither is its accompanying violence. Fighting fire with fire is a time-honored and effective strategy — literally and figuratively.
The working assumption of our foreign policy would be that it’s better for these United States to be respected than liked. Besides, will Mohammedans as a group ever like us no matter how much we “friend” them? Not if they follow the Koran.
Is “friending” then hoping and waiting proving to be an effective foreign policy? No. Perhaps, we “infidels” best face facts, unpleasant as they may be. The longer we wait, the worse the situation.
Would Obama be up to the task? If his past behavior is an indicator of his future behavior, the question answers itself.
2) Convene a meeting of the foreign ministers of the three pre-eminent, real international powers; namely, China, Russia, and the USA. If military forces from NATO assist in material and financial support against Iran, a representative from the unraveling, groveling EU could be included.
The goal of the meeting would be to have arrived at a consensus in dealing with violent Mohammedan individuals, groups, and nations — actual and potential. If no consensus can be reached, these United States will have no choice but to go it alone in a manner consistent with our Constitution and traditional American ideals and values as stated by our Founding Fathers (www.inescapableconsequences.com).
Could there be a better, comprehensive, long-term plan? Perhaps. If so, let its proponents state it clearly and succinctly — now not later. Why now? Because there may be no later.
Note & References
1) Carroll, J: Constantine’s Sword. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. (2001).
2) See, for example, Ben Hammad, AR: The Religion of Truth. Riyadh, KSA: The General Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, and Propagation (1991).
3) Scientifically, one does not “discriminate against”; one may select against but not “discriminate against”. Governmental and ideological assassins of the English language have perverted the verb, to discriminate, in a way that only destroys its true meaning. One discriminates between or among but not against.
4) Scarborough R and Taylor G: “Iran-N. Korea cooperation on nukes feared.” The Washington Times, 21SEP2015, page 6.