Hate, Guilt, Resentment and Denial have gone unchallenged for too long.

It is time to talk to Islam in its own 'language'.

People of the 'book' know something of the will of Allah as well, and much of what Islam is saying contradicts God's own words as related by his other prophets.

It is a 'truth' that Allah cannot contradict himself, as it is against his very nature.

Working from the presumption that the Bible is at the very least, inspired by God, it is then incontrovertible that if there is contradiction, it must then be mankind's fallibility that has led to this contradiction.

If so, is it the prophets of old who are 'mistaken' or the words of Mohammed? If it is the prophets prior to Mohammed, then how can Islam profess to be, of the book?

Israel is a pariah nation that the majority of the world would prefer to rid itself of, why?

The reasons vary, yet no one can honestly deny that Israel would trade almost anything for peace. Pariah status for a nation is indefensible, when that nation seeks accommodation.

Israel is the most hated nation and the Jews the most hated ethnicity in the world. Why?

Here the 'reasons' vary not at all. When the heart hates, the mind needs no justification.

In the face of all this hate, the most powerful nation on earth has committed itself to friendship with this people. Despite its faults, America has through continual sacrifice of its most precious treasure secured an unchallengeable claim to the highest moral ground. Yet it stands by Israel. Why?

The answer lies in the simple sincerity of 'doing the right thing'. Intuitively, Americans sense where the most 'right' lies in this conflict.

We, Israel and America are engaged in a great struggle with people whose beliefs are such that they are sworn to the destruction of all that the West holds most dear. That is what is at stake. Only fools argue otherwise.

Well meaning, peaceful people throughout the world condemn Israel for defending itself, citing 'proportionality of response', but at heart they are asserting that if only Israel gave enough, it would be enough.

Their only disagreement being how much would be enough. Some claimed in the past that Israel ending the 'occupation' of Gaza and the West Bank would be enough. The Israeli's ended the 'occupation' of Gaza and the West Bank and it was not enough.

The most extreme and thus the most honest say that only when the Jews abandon Israel and leave the Middle East, will it be enough. This is the firm position of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and many others.

They cite as justification the assertion that the world 'stole' Palestine from Islam and gave it to the Jews. Implicit to this view is that the ancestral claim of the Jews to Israel is invalid.

They 'reason' that forceful Roman expulsion of the Jews from Israel 'canceled' any valid claim by Jews to the land that was once Israel. Inherent to this view is that the force that the Roman's used legitimatizes the legal claim that the Jews have lost any claim to Israel. And indeed, force has often 'settled' disputes.

One of the universal human values is a sense of fairness. Even the youngest children in day care centers can be heard to proclaim when offended, the age old cry of "That's not fair!"

At its most fundamental level, 'fairness' centers in equality of treatment.

Hypocrisy, the opposite of fairness, centers in applying one set of standards to one side and then another, less advantageous set of standards to the other side.

Islam condemns hypocrisy as much as any other religion.

If the Jewish claim to Israel was 'canceled' by Roman use of force, how does Islam honestly avoid the charge of hypocrisy when considering the Jewish claim to Israel by right of conquest? In three wars, 1948, 1967 and 1973 Israel established its 'right' to its national existence through force. Islam lost and to the victor go the spoils...

In each of the wars, Israel was attacked, so it cannot be claimed that they gained the land through unlawfully taking land from other nations.

This is strictly according to Islam's own reasoning.

Are Muslims hypocrites? Are they sore losers? After all, Muslims started the wars with full expectations of taking the land back through force. When they lost, will they now cry, as children, unable to accept the 'rules', that they established?

How can Islam respect itself if it demands a standard of others that it refuses to live up too? The answer of course, is that it cannot. Only intellectual dishonesty can claim otherwise. And dishonesty is NOT of Allah.

Hard questions need to be asked of those in Islam who refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. When evasion and other tactics of denial are employed, as they surely will, they must not go unanswered.

All of us, from childhood onward, understand that we cannot have it both ways.

By Islam's own reasoning and by principles Islam supports; it is a 'truth' that either ancestral Jewish claims to Israel predate Islamic claims by many millennia and thus are valid, or Israel through force of arms has established its right to existence.

Whether Muslims like it or not, Islam, by the very qualities of 'fairness' that have been placed within all of us, must end its persecution of the Jewish people. Acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist, in peace, is the 'surrender' Allah requires of all Muslims.

Those whose hate does not allow them to see and accept in their heart the truth of this assertion are in active disobedience to God's will. One way or the other, they shall be chastised. The sad irony is that the more successful those who refuse to accept Allah's will are in the short-term, the greater the retribution of Allah will be for all Muslims in the long run.

There is a terrible storm brewing in the Persian lands and the 'harvest' the leadership of Iran is bringing upon the ‘Umma’ will be horrific and Biblical in the truest sense.

Proverbs 14:12 said it best; "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."

Muslims in the Middle East need to wake up before its too late. Too late, for them.

America is slow to awaken to its terrible anger. For many, even 9/11 was not enough but as the Japanese learned to their regret, once America is awoken, a terrible price is paid.

Iranian mullahs would do well to reflect upon the 'unofficial' motto of the US Marines: "No better Friend, no worse Enemy" in its profoundest meaning, that is a reflection of America as well.

The suicide attack in Beirut is pointed to by many Muslims as 'proof' of the exaggerated prowess of US Marines. It would be wise to remember that the Marines were not allowed to respond to the attack in 1983 that they endured.

A better evaluation of the Marines is gained by remembering Okinawa... Japanese soldiers practiced Bushido, the warrior code of the ancient Samurai, who welcomed 'honorable' death and invented the concept of 'glorious' suicide. They were fierce in battle.

The Marines destroyed them, almost to the last man.

Hitler made the fatal mistake of thinking Americans soft. Ultimately, it was the last mistake he ever made. It may well be the last mistake Islam makes as well.

It does not do any good to talk of the 'minority of fanatics' within Islam. By tolerating that fanaticism within its midst, Islam is slowly bringing retribution upon all Muslims. This is NOT a disguised threat; it's an observation of the predictable consequences Islam is courting.

Iran's pursuit of Nuclear weapons is doomed to result in their use.

America may well lose cities, and there will be much gnashing of teeth. Israel may be effectively crippled but Israel will NOT go quietly into the night. Islam cannot eliminate Israel and America’s Nuclear weapons and they will use them, if they must.

If Iran takes that terrible path, in the end, it will be Islam that will suffer greatly.

The world's condemnation of Islam will know no end. Islam will be as seen as beneath contempt, morally bankrupt and the Lord will say, “Verily I say unto you, I know you not." Mathew 25:12

If they do not repent, the hate that so many Muslims harbor in their hearts will be the ruin of them, for ultimately, hate always destroys the hater.

This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AFP

Cleric tries to join evacuation

EXILED Islamist preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed tried but failed to join the naval evacuation of British nationals from Lebanon's capital Beirut, it was reported today.

Bakri attempted to join evacuees boarding a Royal Navy vessel on Wednesday, but was rebuffed "at the harbour gates by sharp-eyed officials", The Sun said in a front page "exclusive".

A Ministry of Defence spokesman in London could not confirm the report, but said: "Our understanding is that's not true, and we've told The Sun that".

The Sun also reported that Syrian-born Bakri has written to the British embassy in Beirut, asking to be readmitted to Britain on "humanitarian grounds".

Bakri, who settled in Britain in 1985, was banned from reentering Britain in August last year, when then home secretary Charles Clarke ruled that his presence was "not conducive to the public good".

He headed the radical al-Muhajiroun group in London until 2004, and praised the hijackers who carried out the September 11 attacks in the United States in 2001 as the "magnificent 19".

Thousands of foreign nationals have fled Lebanon as Israel has imposed an air and naval blockade on the country and continued a bombing campaign that has left more than 300 people dead after the Islamic militia Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week.

I am a neoconservative.

I reached that intellectual position independently, never having read anything about neo-conservaticism prior to forming my views.

In fact, it was quite a while after 9/11 before I even realized that others had reached the same conclusions and that they were called neo-conservatives.

Obviously there is some individual variation in views but for the most part I am firmly in that camp. Of course, I am not Jewish and do not sharpen my fangs every night, so I realize for some that disqualifies me from being a true neoconservative ;-)

Having reached my neoconservative views independently, after long and deep reflection on the issues of Islamic terrorism, I believe I can offer insights into the neoconservative rationale in the WoT. I trust reasoned presentation will demonstrate the veracity of my assertions.

Reportedly, some NeoCons are now denying that the administration ever claimed that the primary reason for invading Iraq was to remove Saddam's 'non-existent' WMD's. That is a hypocritical falsity.

That was the primary rationale put forward to the American public and International community. It's not true and it never was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Yes, we did go into Iraq hoping to find WMD's and knowing that the WMD's might not be there by the time we invaded.

Yes, we knew there might not be any WMD's but as stated previously, everyone in possession of intel believed Saddam had them, so while Bush may have been mistaken, he didn't lie in saying that he believed Saddam had WMD's.

Bush was less than frank in giving the impression that WMD's was the primary reason we were invading Iraq. That mistake has led to great difficulties in responding to criticisms of invading Iraq. 

There is an "Axis of Evil" that is as much an enemy of our way of life as the Nazi's and Communists were previously. To deny this is either profound ignorance, insane denial or purposeful deceit. Saddam's Iraq was part of the Axis of Evil, though at the time one of the smaller players. 

NeoCon's haven't been very forthright with the American public as to the complete NeoCon rationale.

The reasons for the 'misdirection' in the public Neocon arguments are understandable, though I have argued from prior to our invasion of Iraq that this was a fundamental strategic mistake and that it would come back to haunt us and, it has.

The reason for disingenuous was twofold, consisting of a domestic reason and an international reason. Domestically, it was decided that the true NeoCon argument was 'too complex' for the American public to grasp. An arrogant, if somewhat plausible presumption.

Especially with the counter arguments that the left and the MSM would mount against it and therefore it was decided to 'simplify' the rationale in hopes that this would ensure that the Neocon strategy in the WoT would be implemented.

Internationally, that we couldn't reveal our strategy, as it would benefit those at odds with our national interests, especially with the MSM determined to undermine any confrontational strategy.

It is important to note that the NeoCons in the Bush administration sincerely believed their analysis of the Islamic terrorist danger the West faces to be correct and that only their 'solution' had a chance for success.

That of course is debatable and that debate did take place but the NeoCon's carried the argument, at least with Bush. They 'won' the debate because Bush is a 'bottom line' kind of guy. He does not like complexity and evaluates analysis and 'solutions' based in fundamental principle asking himself, does this make sense on a basic level?

Arguments as to whether this is 'smart' miss the point, it's simply one way of evaluating information with advantages and disadvantages. Its effectiveness is a matter of 'quality of execution' rather than its value 'per se' as a method of decision making.

The primary reason for invading Iraq was not even the very real danger that one day, when able, Saddam would give WMD's to terrorist groups.

It was reasonable to presuppose that Saddam, in all probability was maintaining WMD development programs. Those were important reasons but not the essential reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

The primary reason(s) for the invasion of Iraq was twofold and of a long-term strategic nature, those reasons were; to send a very clear message to other nations that the game's 'rules' had changed. That the US was serious, that al Quada and Islamic Terrorism had, in the words of Yamamoto, once again "awoken the sleeping giant"...

AND to establish a 'beachhead' of democracy in the very heart of the Axis of Evil. NeoCons posit that in the long term, the surest way to defeat Islamic terrorism is the growth of democracy within the ME.

In order to understand the rationale driving the NeoCon strategy in the WoT it is essential to understand the NeoCon analysis of Islamic Terrorism. It is simple but hardly ever articulated clearly and directly. Woven throughout Bush's speeches are all the elements of the NeoCon rationale but Bush's great weakness is his inability to articulate the entire argument in a cohesive manner.

Here is the analysis of Islamic terrorism in a nutshell.

First the context:

Islamic Terrorism is a world-wide radical religious philosophy absolutely dedicated to the destruction of Western values and institutions. It is a 'clash of civilizations' only in that democracy and separation of church and state are seen by Islamics as a direct threat to traditional Islamic values. One that in a modern world of Television, the Internet, cultural interchange and the ability to rapidly travel to other parts of the world dooms 'first wave' Islamic societies to cultural assimilation when interacting freely with 'third wave' information societies in the West and East.

Now the structural make-up:

The phenomenon of Islamic Terrorism is threefold in nature. This is absolutely necessary to a full understanding of the threat it represents to Western values, institutions and societies.

The threefold nature of Islamic Terrorism consists of:

Various ideologically disparate terror networks. Ideologically fueled by hate-filled radical Islamic mullahs operating out of state-funded madras's. These hate filled mullah's are key and they ARE promoting an interpretation of Islam that IS inherent to the religion. ISLAM must change. It must have its reformation. It is the 'Spanish inquisition' of our times.

The Rogue nations who use these networks as 'stealth' quasi-military arms of aggression in a struggle with other nations to ensure the furtherance of their national goals.

The 'enabling' status-quo nations, who out of short-term national self-interest, block as much as possible any effective actions against the Rogue nations.

It is impossible to defeat the terror networks without defeating the rogue nations. Either dissuading them from further support, as in Libya's case or through direct overthrow and destruction of the underlying social structures that support terrorism within these nations. (As will be the case with Iran.)

It is imperative that the 'enabling' nations, primarily Russia, China, France, Germany and much of the EU be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Direct confrontation is neither desirable nor practical. We must essentially 'sideline' them through adroit diplomatic maneuvering.

It is imperative to recognize that the leadership of the enabling nations are NOT our friends.

Put colloquially, they are the type of enemy who seeks to 'stab us in the back' smiling as they do it. Never revealing the internalized hate until the knife slips in and we turn to them saying, "Et tu Brute?"

Iraq was chosen because it was overall, the best place to start among the Axis of Evil nations in implanting democracy.

Not as some have simplistically believed out of a frat-boy bravado by Bush over his father's attempted assassination, though as any of us in his position would, he undoubtedly appreciates the 'icing on the cake'.

Consider the advantages Iraq offered:

No one would miss Saddam; he is a singularly unsympathetic figure.

The propaganda bonanza of 25 million people freed, a tremendously impactful reality for captive peoples across the ME.

Though clearly 'perverted', generations of Iraqi's have been raised in a secular environment. Iraqi's have been accustomed to living with real separation of church and state, arguably they are the ME nation most predisposed to acceptance of democracy and seperation of church and state. Thus making the transition to democracy less problematic, raising the prospects for success from impossible to merely very difficult.

Close proximity to the other Axis of Evil nations, providing immediate and unavoidable comparison by the citizens of Iran and Syria with their social arrangements and the new Iraqi freedoms.

The resulting 'message' that a successful Iraq presents; If Shiite's, Sunni's and Kurds can govern together in relative peace, then why not in their country?

Strategic military proximity to Syria and Iran creating pressure to ameliorate their behavior.

The final two truisms that fuel NeoCon analysis:

NeoCon acceptance of the proposition that free will and it's necessary foundation freedom, is an innate human quality, a 'universal' human need, thus one that transcends any culture.

Secondly, in crises situations, the choice is never between good and bad options. In a crisis, the options are very bad to even worse. By definition, it would not be a crises, if there was a good solution.

The key to understand is that invariably, in a crises, choosing the short-term less-bad option leads to long-term much-worse results.

These are the realistic decision-making principles that are driving Cheney's advice and Bush's choices.

There is a method to the administration's 'madness'...

Bush's personal qualities, NeoCon silence and a leftist mind-set viscerally opposed to confrontation have led to the view that NeoCons are a secret cabal who do not have America's interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth.

NeoCons are simply tough-minded former liberals who in today's peace-at-any-cost liberal mind-set have sought refuge within the Republican Party.

Just like Reagan, they didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left them.

"My thoughts exactly. Regardless of the size of the budget deficit we are still going further into debt. The US. does not have unlimited credit. With a steady de-valuation of the American dollar we are already having trouble finding buyers for our debt. The "growth" of our economy means nothing if it is supported by foreign nations buying our debt. Eliminating the debt is the only sure fire way to stop the house of cards from collapsing." Posted by: Joe

Absolutely true.

The problem of course is that neither side will agree to end entitlements for their pet programs.

But, I do have a proposal that might change all that and I'd welcome feedback on it.

As crazy as this will sound, I believe it’s possible to over a very long time, end the debt, greatly reduce taxes and have plenty of money to spend on needed programs.

No, I am not proposing that we can have our 'cake and eat it too’.

Everything I am about to propose is based in mathematically and fiscally sound principles.

It will take sacrifice and most importantly, fiscal discipline. And I know how improbable and even oxymoronic the words Congress, the American people and fiscal discipline are in the same sentence…

Nevertheless, here goes:

We all are familiar with individuals who have been ‘blessed’ with the inheritance of a trust fund.

I propose that we create a 'public trust fund' for the American people.

‘Running the numbers and doing the math’ is something that any actuarial accountant worth his salt can do to arrive at the specific amounts and details. Being a ‘big picture’ guy and ‘idea’ man, I’ll leave the details to the accountants and only elaborate the basic principles. So, please do not hold my feet to the fire over amounts used by me to illustrate the idea, ok?

I also realize that while the idea is simple, successful implementation of this idea would be complex. So, if complexity puts you off, you may want to pass on this post right now.

So, starting whenever, we institute a new tax!

Hey, liberals like it already but conservatives are running for the door!

Now stay with me fiscal conservatives, I promise this is a tax you CAN live with and tolerate.

It’s an investment in ourselves tax…Matter of fact, it’s not accurate to think of it as a tax, so view it for what it in fact is, an investment in our children’s future and a gift from those alive today to those yet to come.

One that will fundamentally alter the economic circumstances for ALL future generations.

A big, bold claim I know, so each of you judges the worth of the idea, fair enough?

It is the idea of compounded interest and capitalism taken to the max…

For purposes of discussion, say the new tax is 1% of all gross income. Making it based in gross would eliminate the possibility of evasion. Everybody would pay into it and Congress couldn’t play fast and lose with how much was being collected.

All monies collected would go into a version of Al Gores ‘lock box’ (groan, groan, ok the man had one good idea in his life, come on).

The lock box would HAVE to really be a lock box because the only way to make this work is to create a fiscal sanctuary that Congress AND The American people simply COULDN”T get into. AND as you’ll soon see, as time passed, the temptation to ‘raid’ the lock box would become irresistible.

To make this work a Constitutional amendment would be needed, making this a constitutionally created program, it would have to be literally woven into the constitution.

Congress would have to cooperate and the only way they’d actually do that is if the public and media embraced this idea and demanded that Congress implement the idea.

Full transparency and a special, ‘unanimous vote condition’ would be written into the legislation creating the tax fund and its eventual distribution.

This means that in order to change anything, Congress would have to get a special, unanimous approval from BOTH houses AND then it would have to put the proposed change through the state amendment process, which requires 3/4 th’s of the states legislatures approval.

Just the unanimous voting requirement would keep Congress from raiding the fund because as we all know you can’t get 100% of the people to agree to anything… There’s always at least one cantankerous cuss who’s NOT going along with the group, either out of spite or principle.

Once the needed protection was set up for the fund and a real lock box created we would then start the new tax. Eventually, the amount of money collected would build to an astronomical amount. That means it would need to have built-in safeguards to ensure that it keeps growing untouched until the time was right.

Again the actuaries can run the numbers but the day would come in say, 50yrs. but whenever, when the payout phase could begin.

Payout would be set up so that the amount taken out of the fund on a yearly basis could never be as much as what is being put on a yearly basis into the fund. This would ensure that the fund would continue to grow. The payout in Phase 1 would initially go to eliminating the debt. It would again be written into the constitution that once debt elimination began, Congress could NOT add to the debt.

Boy, they’re not going to like that requirement.

Once the debt was eliminated, Phase 2 would begin and payout would go to reducing taxes.

For every dollar paid out from the fund, taxes would have to be reduced by one dollar. In time with the fund increasing on a yearly basis, taxes would be greatly reduced. Yet Revenues would grow because the economy is growing due to less ‘tax-drag’ upon it.

To eliminate Congress simply raising taxes to end-run around the requirement, an overall cap would be placed upon Congress as to how much it could raise taxes. Say to 10% of whatever amount the fund was paying out. Probably a yearly cap as well as an overall cap would be best.

The only exception to this would be in times of war or national emergency and then it would take a 3/4’s vote of Congress, with mandatory yearly renewal of any increase in taxes over the spending ‘cap’.

What I’m basically proposing is using access to a national ‘trust’ fund to impose spending and taxing limits upon Congress. I’m also proposing to gradually shift taxes from the income tax to the trust fund. The country still needs revenue for public projects, and necessary and worthy programs.

Why would liberals go along with limiting Congresses ability to tax and spend?

Ah, because of the carrots I offer :-)

Once taxes fall to a predetermined level, say 10%, the payout enters phase three…

Before I describe the third phase of the payout from the ‘lock box fund’ lets reiterate where we are; the debt is paid off, so the country is debt free. Over time, taxes have been reduced to an easily sustainable level, say 10% of income.

Ok, phase three payout.

The fund now starts paying out to eliminate the remaining personal taxes. Starting from the bottom up…So those most in need are benefited first. But over time, everyone benefits with the greatest amounts going to those paying the most into the system. While they wait longer to receive those benefits, they are compensated with a commensurately greater reward.

Eventually the ‘trust fund’ grows to the point of essentially eliminating personal taxes.

Incidentally, no one said anything about eliminating business taxes, though they also should be limited to a set amount, I favor a flat tax but that’s another discussion.

Eventually we will have almost completely eliminated taxes from income and thus it is time for the fourth phase and, with an even bigger carrot. Remember, the trust fund has continued to grow…

The fourth phase of the payout is individual revenue enhancement. Again, we start at the bottom with a yearly payment equal to the taxes they would have paid per their income prior to the phase 3 payout implementation of the trust fund.

It’s important to consider the range of individual responses to this program. Basically one of three categories of response is possible. People either work less, the same or harder. That's their choice but in any case, the amount of revenue enhancement is set by the amount they started initially receiving.

As time goes by, more and more people start receiving income from the trust fund, the longer you wait the greater the amount when you do start receiving revenue from the trust fund so again there is compensation and again the longer someone waits, the more able they are to forego the revenue in any case.

Eventually, in say a hundred years(?), the trust fund has grown to the point where the fifth and final phase can begin. And boy, is this carrot a whopper, the biggest of all!

The trust fund starts creating individual trust funds that start at birth…for everyone. Because one child has no inherent right to more than another, (we’re all created equal…) the amount placed into every child’s trust fund is the same. With the yearly amount growing as the fund continues to grow. This would continue until the child reached its majority. Then the funding would stop for the individual and the fund would be available for access by the new adult.

Details like the unfortunate death of a child could be easily worked out, with whatever amount going to remaining siblings, if no siblings existed, then perhaps it would be returned to the public trust fund for distribution to all.

How much, and in what manner the individual trust fund could be accessed would have to be worked out. Common sense would seem to indicate that a mandatory amount should be required to remain so as to continue to grow for retirement, etc.

Depending upon the use envisioned, the individual might be required to withdraw funds according to a formula. Obviously there would have to be exceptions built in for things like medical emergencies.

Well, there you have it.

It may be idealistic but as I pointed out before, it appears to me to be based in sound fiscal principles. It already does work for individuals lucky enough to inherit. Think of Paris Hilton…or not. But you get the idea.

The only thing I see as a real obstacle to implementation of the idea is simple human cussedness. As the saying goes, people can ‘f’ up a wet dream, but we got it right once 217 years ago. I don’t see why we can’t get lucky one more time.

One thing is for sure, with the emergence of certain future realities: artificial intelligence, robotic manufacturing, the eventual discovery of fusion based power (the suns’ source of atomic energy, environmentally clean) resulting in such low energy costs as to be essentially ‘free’ energy. The incredible mineral resources out in the asteroid belts waiting for future exploitation...then using the moon (no environmental degradation) for heavy manufacturing with products shipped down to Earth as we now do with China, productivity will rise to the point of absurdity and we will HAVE to find a new operating paradigm in economics.

To reiterate, the main idea is to create a public trust fund that in time can be used to good purpose. The specifics of how we administer it are details that would need to be worked out. That's a case where many heads are better than one.

So, let the criticism begin and hopefully there’s enough worth in the idea that those more knowledgeable can figure out what needs improvement and actually make it work.

(BTW, not one person on Wizbang responded to the idea. I guess I'm ahead of my time;-)

So, until someone convincingly explains why a public trust fund won't work as well as a private trust fund...I'm going to adopt the 'Lone voice crying in the wilderness' pose.

Hey, it worked for the Prophets! Then again, there's also that bit about a prophet never being honored in his own land...or was it time?

Anyway, I've done my part, you have to decide whether you're gonna drink or just complain about being thirsty.

Islamic terrorism can only be understood within the context of their beliefs.

"Those who oppose the mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the mullahs and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam-- begging to have their blood shed for Islam." -Ayatollah Khomeini

Reflecting on that quote it occurred to me that in an important sense, there is a remarkable similarity between ‘modern’ extreme Islamist Mullahs and the Pharisees of Jesus’ time.

"There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious." Ayatollah Khomeini

It seems to me that this type of sociopathic mind is exactly the type of mind-set that Jesus referred to when he said to the Pharisees; “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” Mat 23:13

Let me provide an example of the mind-set Jesus railed against as completely contrary to the ‘spirit’ of God but absolutely convinced of its own ‘rightness’, a sense of ‘rightness’ that derives from strict adherence to what the believer actually believes to be God’s will.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979, one of his first legal reforms was to reduce the marriageable age of girls to nine years old, exactly in line with the example of the Prophet, announcing: "It is a blessing for a family to have a daughter out of the house before her first blood.”

Marrying off a child prior to puberty is an abomination. It is a complete and utter denial of self-determination. It completely opposes free will.

For secularists it is a denial of the most basic of ‘human rights’. It certainly opposes Jefferson’s maxim of: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

For those who also believe in a just and loving divine providence, it is a denial of fundamental human dignity and free will, granted by God to ALL.

To further establish the mind-set of these extremist Islamic mullahs consider this quote:

“… those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law].

Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!…Islam says: Kill the [ non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. … Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! … Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” Ayatollah Khomeini, 1942

In countries living under Islamic Sharia law there is no separation of church and state. The Mullah’s are either directly of indirectly the leaders of these nations. When you combine political and religious leadership into one governing body the result is near total control.

Given that total control, it isn’t simply a case of the national leadership ‘turning a blind eye’ to what terrorist groups are doing; it’s a case of active support and direction of the terrorist networks by the extremist mullahs controlling the countries. Terrorist groups are the covert, ‘stealth’ quasi-military arms of these nations.

Since these mullahs are as committed to their world view as the Nazi’s were to theirs, diplomacy and negotiation are less than worthless. Diplomacy and negotiation and the western impulse toward compromise and tolerance are used as weapons, against those whom Islamists perceive as following evil.

The mind-set is by definition that everyone who isn’t an Islamic fundamentalist is evil.

The palindrome of the word ‘Live’ is Evil.

Fundamental Islamist mullahs believe to-their-very-core that the only correct way to live is under Islam’s laws, which they believe were taken as dictation by Muhammad from the Archangel Gabriel. The Prophet’s words are simply God’s words directly conveyed by his Messenger.

Since this is a direct and specific claim by Muhammad, there is NO room for interpretation, one must either fully accept it or reject it as at best flawed. Islam accepts this claim and thus by definition any other way of life or belief is contrary to GOD’s WILL and therefore EVIL.

Their world-view will not allow for any other interpretation. It’s all or nothing. A case of complete black and white with no shades of grey whatsoever. It’s the ultimate expression of; ‘it’s our way or the highway’.

Islamic terrorism is the result of an inability to militarily confront the west, coupled with the belief that Islam must emerge into world domination completely triumphant, as that is God’s will. The decision to undermine the west and subdue the world subversively through ‘guerilla’ tactics and terror is specifically encouraged in the Koran; jihad is justified by whatever means necessary.

Either through successful subversion and domination of the West or, at its most extreme, through the precipitation of ‘Armageddon’, essentially an attitude of; by God, if it takes a Nuclear War to force the return of the 12^th Imam, so be it.

The 12^th Imam is a strongly held belief by many Islamic extremists, including the ‘President’ of Iran, that a semi-divine entity exists in hiding who will emerge at the appropriate time to conquer for Islam and rule over the world by Divine right. Put colloquially, ‘if they can’t beat the World, then God will do it for them’.

Should they defeat the West, they would then turn to subduing India’s Hindu’s, Russia’s ideologically lost masses and finally, China’s atheistic heathens.

The fact that it’s an insane undertaking is meaningless, it’s God’s will. They have surrendered (the meaning of the word Islam is surrender) to God’s will and must obey or they are lost. There is nothing they won’t do to escape that fate. The attack on Beslan in Russia and the intentional murder of over a hundred children conclusively demonstrates that assertion.

It is my contention that it is the Mullah’s who are fueling Islamic terrorism.

They are the most fanatic, the ones who have devoted their very lives to the support of a radical world-view that views total domination of the world as a God-ordained mandate. No less than the Nazi’s under Hitler and just as ruthless in their methods. Should they win, the genocidal extermination of the Jews will be just ‘the opening act’ in their mad ‘play’. And make no mistake, they mean to win or die trying.

Since the mullahs are in control of the terrorist supporting countries and since they have the economic assets to successfully pursue Nuclear weapons, it is just a matter of time until they acquire nuclear capability.

Nuclear weapons and the missiles with which to deliver them do not equate with victory, but it IS the first real tactical and strategic step in that end-process. It will force upon the nations within reach of those weapons a level of appeasement and concessions that is ultimately self-defeating.

It may well come to pass that Iran’s first move once it acquires Nuclear weapons will be to lessen tensions. They will once again claim they simply desire nuclear weapons out of a need for security against the US. As proof, they will agree to dialog, negotiation and treaties ‘proving’ they seek regional ‘cooperation’. Since we're dealing with Islamo Nazi's it's appropriate to remember Hitler’s ‘treaties’...

Let me offer one real possibility of how events could play out with a Nuclear Iran.

Iran will be able to ‘influence’ the admission of Turkey into the EU. Once Turkey is admitted, as a member of the EU, Turkey’s citizens can travel freely within the Member Nations of the EU without the need for passports, etc.

Once Iran has assembled enough nuclear weapons, distributing them to their terrorist groups for covert placement within the major European cities can be easily accomplished through the egress that Turkey now offers.

By the time this happens, Muslim immigration into European countries will have reached the ‘trigger’ point, which in Islam is when 1/3^rd of the population is Muslim. According to Islam, by God’s edict, Muslims then have a ‘divine right’ to demand implementation of Sharia law. Due to falling birthrates among the Europeans and an aging population, estimates are that point will come across much of Europe in a little less than 20 years.

With the ‘coincidental’ announcement from terror networks that they have secretly placed nuclear bombs within the major European cities, capitulation by the European powers is certain.

In the main, individuals are rarely willing to die for principle, established nations, never. Essentially defenseless people will respond to nuclear blackmail with political capitulation.

Europe’s leaders will say, “No one has to die” and, going quietly into the night, millions will enter into a slavery of the mind, soul and body. But the ‘night’ will NOT be quiet for non-Muslims, as THAT is when things will get really nasty.

Should this come to pass, many will die as the reality of what has befallen them becomes everyday life, a life of ‘dhimmitude’. (second-class citizenship and a not-so-subtle form of slavery, supported and specified within the Koran) Indeed, the dead will be the lucky ones because the rest will experience a living death, a far worse fate for it destroys the soul.

ALL the pieces are on the table and just as in a chess game; the ‘strategy’ of the Islamic Mullahs is clear to anyone open-minded enough to honestly assess the situation. The outcome is predictable as well, unless the west moves while there are still options allowing for victory.

But time IS running out and the prospects for western consensus, based in a realistic and clear-eyed assessment of the danger Islamic terrorism truly represents are dim.

We are ‘whistling past the graveyard’ hoping the monsters aren’t real but they are real and knocking at civilizations door.

To paraphrase; we have met the enemy and he wears a human face but there is only darkness within that soul:

"There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun [or] joy in whatever is serious." Ayatollah Khomeini

It’s the Mullahs, stupid.