War and Peace - and Deceit - in Islam (Part 2)

Al-Qaeda, the Palestinians, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations have all perfected the use of deception to advance Islamist goals.

By Raymond Ibrahim

War is eternal

The fact that Islam legitimizes deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; as the saying goes, all’s fair in love and war. Moreover, non-Muslim thinkers and philosophers, such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, all justified deceit in war. The crucial difference, however, is that, according to all four recognized schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity — until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39). In its entry on jihad, the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam simply states:

The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict. Read more ...

Source: Pajamas Media

War and Peace - and Deceit - in Islam (Part 1)

To defeat the aims of radical Muslims, the West must understand the role of deception in Islamic warfare.

Editor’s note: Substantial portions of the following essay make up part of Mr. Ibrahim’s forthcoming written testimony to be presented to Congress.

By Raymond Ibrahim

Today, in a time of wars and rumors of wars emanating from the Islamic world - from the current conflict in Gaza, to the saber-rattling of nuclear-armed Pakistan and soon-to-be Iran - the need for non-Muslims to better understand Islam’s doctrines and objectives concerning war and peace, and everything in between (treaties, diplomacy), has become pressing. For instance, what does one make of the fact that, after openly and vociferously making it clear time and time again that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel annihilated, Hamas also pursues “peace treaties,” including various forms of concessions from Israel - and more puzzling, receives them? Read more ...

Source: Pajamas Media

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words: True Intentions are Hard to Hide

More photos from the "Anti-War" rally

Source: Zombie Time

Studying the Islamic Way of War

By Raymond Ibrahim

At the inaugural conference for the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA) back in April, presenter LTC Joseph Myers made an interesting point that deserves further elaboration. Though military studies have traditionally valued and absorbed the texts of classical war doctrine — such as Clausewitz's On War, Sun Tsu's The Art of War, even the exploits of Alexander the Great as recorded in Arrian and Plutarch — Islamic war doctrine, which is just as if not more textually grounded, is totally ignored.

As recently as 2006, former top Pentagon official William Gawthrop lamented that "the senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered." Today, seven full years after September 11, our understanding of the Islamic way of war is little better. Read more ...

Source: National Review Online

India Ready for War: Blaims Pakistan for Mumbai Massacres

The Guardian UK reports today (Monday December 1 2008 00.01 GMT) that India claims "certain proof" of Pakistan's involvement in last week's Mumbai slaughter and chaos. The Indian military is on high alert.

The Indian minister said yesterday there was "no doubt that the terrorists had come from Pakistan ... We have evidence of their nationalities. We will reveal everything soon". [Emphasis added]

In addition, the Guardian reports:

The Indian minister said yesterday there was "no doubt that the terrorists had come from Pakistan ... We have evidence of their nationalities. We will reveal everything soon".

Source: Guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/mumbai-terror-attacks-india-pakistan3

Obama Victory Puts Israel in the Crosshairs

Tuesday, November 4, 2008
By Alan Caruba

While Americans have been fixated on the drama of our national elections, the Syrian army has reportedly taking up battle positions in four villages around Hasbaya opposite Mt. Hermon and northern Israel.

Elements of the Syrian 10th, 12th and 14th Divisions and the Third Army are now poised opposite Israeli positions holding the disputed Shebaa Farms enclave on Mt. Harmon. At this point, too, all of Lebanon is encircled by Syrian troop emplacements.

Reportedly, too, Syria has established a military presence inside Lebanon. During the past summer, they set up radar stations on the Lebanese peaks of Mt. Sannine and Barukh in the central mountain range. Such radar provides a look at every move on Lebanese territory, in northern Israel, and on the eastern Mediterranean.

Lebanon is where the next big, Middle East war will begin and Lebanon will be the platform for a massed attack on Israel. Meanwhile, in Gaza, tons of explosives and weapons have been smuggled into this enclave of Hamas. A coordinated attack from the north and south cannot be ruled out.

In Israel, the politics of the nation has slowed progress toward selecting a new prime minister and putting together a ruling coalition. Israelis have pinned their hopes on a deal with Fatah, formerly the more powerful of the two Palestinian factions, but it has a weak leader and is largely an impotent partner for peace even if it wanted it. There is no proof of that despite U.S. efforts to facilitate an agreement.

To understand the timing of the next war it is important to know that the Israeli congress, the Knesset, will dissolve itself on November 11th and, for the next four or five months, there will be a major power vacuum; a nation essentially without a government that would be vital in the event of an attack. That is why an attack is imminent.

President-elect Obama has surrounded himself with foreign affairs advisors that are uniformly anti-Israel. Despite his protestations, he is likely to be the first U.S. President who would not take steps to assist an Israel under attack.

Indeed, even the Bush administration in its waning days has essentially signaled Syria that, if it keeps its promises to control Hezbollah within Lebanon, it would not oppose its return to control that nation.

All this suggests that a massive attack on Israel will be mounted.

In the sixty years of Israeli sovereignty, it has essentially been at war every day. This, too, is why Palestinians have been never been allowed to migrate and integrate into the other nations of the Middle East. At least two generations of Palestinians have been deliberately kept as refugees without a state.

If Israel were defeated, it would be seen as a signal that the Islamic Revolution is succeeding. It will put American and allied European troops in the region at significant risk. The British have already withdrawn theirs from southern Iraq and it explains in part why British and French generals are recommending that Afghanistan be abandoned.

More to the point, it does not matter what America and Europe do with regard to the Middle East. In the end, wise heads may conclude that it needs to be “contained” much as the former Soviet Union was for four decades. The fever of the Islamic revolution must be allowed to run its course until the people of the Middle East reject it.

In the meantime, with a President-elect who spent his formative years in Indonesia as the adopted son of a Muslim and who has Muslim relatives in Kenya, an attack on Israel is virtually guaranteed.

Source: Warning Signs

Bush will leave his legacy.

Bend over everyone, Georgie W wants to give us a parting gift!

From its inception the Bush administration has been driven by one goal -- to secure U.S. access to foreign oil. That was laid out plainly in 2001, in a document called Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century.

U.S. conservatives believe the United States not only has a right but a duty to use its military might to secure its conventional energy supply.

Also, there's a line of thinking in Washington that says you can't pacify Iraq or Afghanistan without tackling Iran, because Iran covertly supports insurgencies in both countries.

Neither Bush nor Vice-President Dick Cheney is running again. They may feel they have little to lose in launching a conflict that fulfils their ideological mission and, once begun, will be very difficult for the next president to stop.

This dangerous situation should come as no surprise to anyone since Georgie has made his intentions clear right from the get-go. As a matter of fact, that's one of the few positive things that can be said about this administration, they have been outright honest in what they want.

To put a little "Perspective" on the situation I would like to quote from an editorial in the local paper by Michael Den Tandt:

Then there was the bombshell dropped last November by the U.S. intelligence community.

In a paper entitled Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities (you can find it with Google), the agency that oversees all U.S. intelligence gathering said: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

You might have assumed that would be the end of that. Given the unfolding disaster in Iraq, not even Bush could excuse or rationalize war with Iran. The Iraq war has already cost $500 billion US.

The U.S. economy is in recession. And the price of crude oil has shot to a staggering $110 a barrel. Iran produces an estimated 3.8 million barrels of oil a day, accounting for 5% of global supply.

No one denies that a military attack on Iran would push crude far higher, with disastrous impact on global growth. And the economic consequences are the least of it. A U.S. attack on Iran easily could lead to a corresponding attack by Iran on Israel, which then could ignite the wider Middle Eastern war that so many have feared since 9/11.

Here's what makes this a real concern. Bush and many of the people around him believe that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear capacity at all costs.

Their stated reason is that the Shia mullahs who control Iran are insane Islamofascists, and therefore cannot be trusted to withhold use of the bomb out of a desire for self-preservation, as the Soviet Union did during the Cold War.

Subjected to even a little scrutiny, this rationale doesn't hold up.

Saddam Hussein truly was insane, and even he didn't dare use chemical weapons of mass destruction against the Americans, when he had them, back in 1991.

The deeper motivation likely is far colder. Iran is acknowledged as the rising power in the Middle East and it sits on one of the world's last remaining large pools of cheaply accessible crude.

And that's the name of that tune Bunky!

(On a side note here, Canada has nearly as much oil in the Alberta Tar Sands as Saudi Arabia has so maybe that fence they wanted to put up between Canada and the States isn't such a bad idea after all!")

Your "News from the Front" scribe;
Allan W Janssen

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com