Archive for the ‘Foreign Relations’ Category


Monday, October 26th, 2015

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.

Mohammedanism (Islam)
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.

Plan: ?

Measurement: Frequency and magnitude of instrumental and verbal attacks by Mohammedans against the interests of Americans and other “infidels”.

An Option
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 (

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.




Monday, August 13th, 2012

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.”  – President George Washington; Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

Did we miss the announcement? Did the U.S. Congress declare war against Iran?

No? Then, why are we Americans engaging in an act of war against Iran?

Yes, the Iranian government is composed of a bunch of really bad guys who represent a threat to most of their Mohammedan neighbors and to many others deemed “infidels”. Yes, contrary to the opinion of Congressman Ron Paul, these bad guys should be stopped. The question is how? By boycott?

Would the Founding Fathers approve of the issuing a boycott against Iran as a weapon of foreign policy? Not likely.

Unless we’re engaged in a declared war against another nation, more likely they’d advise that we maintain diplomatic relations with that nation and allow free trade that doesn’t jeopardize our security militarily. Besides, whereas boycotts may hurt the other guys, they hurt us, too, and rarely are effective in achieving the stated goals . . . as exemplified by our boycott of Cuba, let alone Iran.(1) In addition, without a declaration of war, such boycotts are unconstitutional.

Boycotts are one thing; blockades are quite another. A blockade is a direct and explicit act of war. Consider a Sino-Russian blockade of American ports on the West Coast. Would we consider such a blockade an act of war?

So, when does a boycott become a blockade? When one nation interferes with third nations conducting usual, regular, and free trade with a targeted, second nation. Currently, the USA is forcing other nations to participate in our boycott against Iran. We, thereby, are giving Iran the legitimate right to retaliate, not that the boys in Tehran feel obliged to gain such legitimacy; even so, a veil of legitimacy never hurts.

Now, consider the current action by one state-based regulator with the ironic name of Lawsky . . . an action in the name of the State of New York against the British bank, Standard Chartered. Governor Cuomo and his bureaucrat, Mr. Lawsky, seem to believe that the actions of the federal government have bestowed upon them the option to enforce their own interpretation of foreign policy. That they may force Standard Chartered into settling for hundreds of millions of dollars confirms the enormity of the power that they are wielding to their own political and financial aggrandizement.

Are they wrong? Right or wrong, what will be the consequence . . . for there always are consequences?

Isn’t the consequence of such unilateral, state-based enforcement the compounding of the current abuse of power commandeered by the USA to process all international financial transactions worldwide involving U.S. dollars? Doesn’t such abuse invite other nations to establish an alternate route of processing such transactions? Would their doing so be in our interest?

“Never happen,” you say? Even our allies in London are unhappy with the prosecution . . . or is it persecution? . . . of British banks, such as Barclays, Lloyds, and HSBC for violating questionably constitutional U.S. laws.

There is a better way . . . a way based upon science not politics or ideology ( The question is whether most older Americans have become too self-centered to listen while most younger Americans are too ignorant to understand, and a majority of the rest of us too demoralized to care.


1) Bozorgmehr, N and Saigol, L: “Iran finds ways to slip grip of sanctions.” Financial Times, 15 August 2012, page 3.


Monday, September 13th, 2010

“When the sacred months are over, slay the idolators wherever you find them. Arrest them and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”
The Koran, Repentance 9:5

The old coffeehouse off Columbus Avenue in Manhattan was nearly empty. Sitting across the table from his friend, Gabriel, Luke leisurely was sipping coffee and reading the newspaper. An aria from Giacomo Puccini’s Tosca played in the background.

It was mid-morning; a Monday. Gabriel was on vacation. Luke had semi-retired some years earlier at age thirty-five and was living the new American dream . . . reaping a financial windfall from a lawsuit. The action had been against a stockbrokerage, and he had been merely a passive beneficiary.

“Gabby, what do you think about that pastor in Florida threatening to burn a copy of the Koran?”

Gabriel slowly removed his attention from his own newspaper. “I’m against burning books. Still, I’d’ve given the guy more credit had he not relented at the last moment . . . seemed a bit cowardly to me. You say you’re going to do something . . . do it! Even so, he did have his moment, which, I guess is what he wanted. A nobody-clergyman heading a nothing-church in Nowheresville gaining worldwide attention including the President’s. The guy showed us what we are . . . whatever his real motivations. As a nation, we’re scared witless. Worse, we’re not ashamed to show it. Now that the guy’s relented, will the Mohammedans hate us less? Personally, I don’t give a damn whether they love us or hate us as long as they respect us and fear us. Instead, we respect and fear them. We refuse to acknowledge Mohammedanism as a religion of war, instead calling it a religion of peace. Besides, if Americans can burn the flag with impunity, why couldn’t this guy have burned the Koran? ”

“Nobody’s questioning his right. It would’ve been an inflammatory act, excuse the pun. Do you really think he should have?”

“Didn’t Bush do it?”

“What nonsense! I never heard any such thing.”

“Well, not literally but figuratively.”

“What’re you talking about? After ‘9/11’. . . . ”

“I’m not talking about Georgie W., Luke, I’m talking about his old man, Bush the First, in 1990.”

“Oh. Well, the same question stands. What’re you talking about?”

In response, Gabriel launched a monologue starting with his version of the context in which President George H. W. Bush organized a war against President Saddam Hussein and Iraq in 1991. “In violation of admonitions by our Founding Fathers, since the end of World War Two, the federal government of the United States of America has pursued an aggressive policy, best labeled ‘Pax Americana’. We’ve based this international policy upon what once was our overwhelming wealth and our military might, gained primarily as a consequence of World War Two. Most telling, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and in spite of our military actions against other nations, we’ve not declared a state of war since 1941, allowing our most dangerous enemies to manipulate domestic public opinion to their advantage via our own mass media . . . like the Mohammedans are doing now.”

“Yeah, so? What does that have to do with burning the Koran?”

“So, until 1991, the USA had no military bases in the Middle East. The naval vessels in the Persian Gulf especially were at risk.”

“From Saddam?”

“No! He was our ally . . . sort of. From a lack of fresh water. The salinity of the Persian Gulf is particularly high. It clogs the desalinization-equipment. Sailors can’t drink saltwater. They can’t wash aircraft on carriers with saltwater. Bush the First and his ‘neo-con’ cronies . . . . “

“Woah! Define your terms. What exactly do you mean by ‘neo-con’?” Luke challenged.

“It’s short for ‘neo-conservative’. On the so-called Left, you’ve got the ‘neo-liberals’ in contrast to the ‘classical liberals’ who founded this country. On the so-called Right, you’ve got the ‘neo-conservatives’ in contrast to what’re now called the ‘paleo-conservatives’ who most closely resemble the classical liberals. Many of these neo-cons previously were ‘neo-libs’ and Democrats themselves. Not surprisingly, the neo-cons hate the paleo-cons even more than they hate the neo-libs. That’s because, like the neo-libs, the neo-cons ignore the U. S. Constitution and American Tradition.”

“How so?”

“First of all, a congressional resolution is not a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about resolutions allowing war . . . only declaring war. Secondly, the neo-cons led by Bush the First had this un-American vision of forcing democracy onto the whole world, including the Mohammedan Middle East . . . by force, if necessary.(1)  They started with Iraq. The consequence? Al-Qaeda and all the rest. Thank you, Old Man Bush.”

“I’m not following you.”

“Look, Luke, Saddam was a homicidal thug, but he was our homicidal thug. Yes, he was a handful, but we could’ve controlled him one way or another. He needed us, and we needed him. He held together the eternally feuding elements in Iraq . . . Sunnis, Shiites, Turkmen, and Kurds . . . as only a dictator can. He recognized Iran as an enemy of us both. Meanwhile, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter had been applauding the fanatical, Mohammedan theologians overthrowing the Shah. Diplomatically, it’s called ‘realpolitik’. Neither Carter nor later the Bushes understood it.”

“You don’t think much of our presidents, I gather.”

“Not since Calvin Coolidge. Well, maybe Reagan. He actually transcended realpolitik successfully . . . the realpolitik of guys like Kissinger and the defeatism of the neo-libs. He resolutely opposed the ‘Evil Empire’ and defeated it without firing a shot. Sun Tzu would’ve applauded. Reagan succeeded . . . ideologically and operationally. For their part, the neo-cons believed that, with the Soviet Union gone, they could force democracy onto a region dominated by a religion that promotes theocracy. To do so, they wanted military bases on Arabic territory, but how to get them?”

“Wasn’t the Iraqi conflict about oil?”

“Perhaps partly, but it also was about ideology. As usual, the public never got the full story from the politicians . . . probably never will.”

“But you did.”

“No, just part of it.”

“How, Gabby?”

“Word of mouth from guys who actually were there.”


“So, as you know, the Saudi royal family had a shaky hold on power . . . still does. While promoting an extreme form of Mohammedanism, it paradoxically battles the fundamentalists like Al-Qaeda who view the family as worse than infidels . . . apostates. Meantime, Saddam had been coveting Kuwait, which he viewed as an illegitimate rump-state really belonging to Iraq. In 1990, he was considering annexing it, which scared the Saudis. Would they be next? Saddam wasn’t a fool. There’s reason to believe that he sounded out Washington well before invading. Our Ambassadress, April Glaspie . . . .”

“Ambassadress?” Luke interrupted.

“April was a woman . . . so ‘Ambassadress’. Anyway, the Cold War was over, and Ambassadress April reportedly told Saddam that Washington had no particular interest in whether he annexed Kuwait, so annex it he did. Boom! If Bush really had wanted to stop Saddam, he’d have gone public and hard . . . beforehand. He didn’t. Why? Was it a set-up? Saddam invades, and Old Man Bush acts like he’s going ballistic. The guy should’ve won an Oscar. The Saudis got scared. Next thing you knew, they granted America military bases on what the whole Mohammedan world considers sacred territory. No infidels allowed. Christians are infidels. Americans are mainly Christians. Boom, again! Only this time, it was the fundamentalists going ballistic . . . and that was no act.”

“You mean Bush’s putting American troops into Saudi Arabia was as if he had marched into Mecca and burned the Koran in the public square.”

“Right! Then, after we’d chased Saddam out of Kuwait, its government also allowed bases for the American military, adding fuel to the fanatics’ fire. On top of that, the old man never finished the job on Saddam by taking control of Iraq . . . partly because doing so wasn’t the deal with his allies, especially the Saudis. Bad deal!”

“And there were consequences.”

“You bet. The prophet, Jeremiah, tells us that we’re judged more by the consequences of our behavior than by our behavior itself. Judge the old man and his neo-cons by the consequences of their behavior.”

“And you’re saying there were no good consequences?”

“One, Luke . . . we made money off Bush the First’s military adventure. Unfortunately, the bad outweighed the good. Ask yourself, would a stable Iraq have fallen apart socially, politically, and economically? Would a fanatical Iran be building a nuclear capability successfully?”

“And you think not.”

“Right! Saddam naturally felt set-up and betrayed, so he became a thorn in the side of the U.S.A. Then, in 2003, Bush the Second tried to finish the job. Surprise! We weren’t welcomed by the so-called Iraqis as friends and liberators but resented as enemies and conquerors . . . the Crusades all over again. So much for democracy in the Arabic and Persian Middle East and maybe soon for democracy in Turkey. Now, we’re about to face a nuclear-armed Iran, thanks to the Bushes and Barack Hussein Obama. Good-bye world unless Israel does our job for us.”

“Israel aside, Gabby, maybe what you say is true. Maybe it’s partly true. I’ll admit, though, that it is unclear what actually happened in 1990 and that official testimony afterwards has been contradictory.”

“There you have it! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Anyway, compared to what Bush the First did in 1990, this pastor’s threat to burn the Koran weren’t nothing. What it shows is that through self-indulgence, indifference, and ignorant arrogance, we’ve allowed ourselves and the rest of the world to be placed into a precarious position facing Armageddon. If the neo-cons hadn’t established military bases in Saudi Arabia then Kuwait, would Al-Qaeda have attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Would they have attacked it and the other targets in 2001?”

“Would they?”

“Who knows? For centuries, the religion founded by Mohammed dominated the world in ways other than militarily.(2) Yet, one can make a case that it was created primarily in order to justify Arabic conquest. Accordingly, it represents a religion of war not peace. Its prophet, Mohammed, is quoted in the Koran to the effect that any person or nation failing to submit to the Koran is a sinner. According to the Koran, each and every Mohammedan, therefore, has the right to wage war against us alleged sinners and, by doing so, to make prisoners and slaves of us. If killed while waging such war, a Mohammedan will enjoy the certain fate of entering Heaven. Even so, I believe that whatever they would’ve done, they might’ve done it differently, at the very least . . . and less successfully.”

“Less successfully?”

“Osama Bin Laden stated clearly that his strategy is to bankrupt the United States. He’s succeeding.”

“Are you excusing the Moslems?”

“To raise questions about how we got ourselves into this mess in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t to excuse the Mohammedans. Quite the contrary! The attacks confirm their true attitude toward others, whom they brand as infidels, and their capability for brutal savagery in repressing others’ freedom of religious expression. We must oppose our enemies and fight to win. Showing fear isn’t the way to win. Do you know that currently American authors critical of Mohammedanism are censored by American publishers out of fear.(3) Even sites on the Internet are being closed by their American hosting services despite their owners’ protests.(4) No, showing fear isn’t the way to win. Understanding then correcting our mistakes is.”

“And you, Gabby, have a way to understand, correct, and avoid such mistakes in the future, no doubt.”

“Yep! Science. It’s all context and contingent consequences. The winning formula? The United States Constitution . . . plus the American Tradition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . plus Science.”

“How do you apply that formula?”

“That, my friend, is another question to be answered another time, but we’d best get on with it or face the inescapable consequences of our folly (”

1. “World Peace, Cheney-style”. Washington Times (National Edition), 13 September 2010, page 38.
2. Lewis, B: What Went Wrong? New York: Oxford University Press (2002).
3. Nomani, AQ: “You Still Can’t Write About Muhammad”. The Wall Street Journal, 06 August 2008, page A15.
4. “Web Site Criticizing Quran Curbed”. The Wall Street Journal, 24 March 2008, page B5.