1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Is the War in Iraq part of the War on Terror?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by giddyup, May 17, 2004.

  1. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE
    by Larry Abraham, January 29, 2004

    I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send them to your friends and relatives. The information is too critical to be over looked in the madness of this election year.

    Watching and listening to the Democrat Party candidates is tantamount to enduring the Chinese water torture. The blah, blah, blah goes on and on and nothing of value comes out except the pain of listening to the same nothingness over and over again. I won't take the time or space to repeat what you have heard so many mind numbing times but what you have not heard is crucial. President Bush and his administration spokesmen are not telling the American people what they really need to know about this "war." If they don't do that between now and November it may cost them the election.

    The war against terror did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one nonetheless. This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the "Third Great Jihad." They are operating within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence.

    No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church.

    What Islam offered was the "carrot or the sword". If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called "children of the book"--the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for former Christians and Jews. With this practical approach to spreading the "word" Islam grew like wildfire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the "First" great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they had firmly established Islam on the Iberian Peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

    The "Second great "jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in "the ways of the Prophet". By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saudi on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites.

    Wahhabism calls for the complete and total rejection or destruction of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the "Third Jihad", who is Wahhabi as were his 9/11 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi. The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans and programs to "westernize" his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target. Remember "America Held Hostage"? Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the "Great Caliphate".

    What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally what they call the "occupied territory" Israel.
    As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please note al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, just yesterday.) The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves; third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries

    Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists. The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison. The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or Hussein's willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait. What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

    Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, world-wide, to "Stop The War". Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little known politician as the thrust point--Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the "Dean Phenomenon". By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the "Hate Bush" crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e., Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.

    Should George W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would then become a life changing event in all of our lives. What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors; V.I. Lenin admonished..."two steps forward, one step back".

    A couple additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the "advice and counsel" of this despicable little hypocrite.

    Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.

    We are in the battle of our lives, a battle which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of "knowing our enemy" the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

    There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.
     
  2. Batman Jones

    Batman Jones Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 1999
    Messages:
    15,937
    Likes Received:
    5,488
    It is amazing how you make fun of Snopes but take every weirdo crank email you get totally seriously. The religious bigotry tip is older than hell. Your guys are getting desperate.
     
  3. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    I checked Snopes for this; nothing turned up.

    Please address the issues rather than resort to name-calling and innuendo... if you can.
     
  4. Batman Jones

    Batman Jones Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 1999
    Messages:
    15,937
    Likes Received:
    5,488
    I'll be honest, giddy. I didn't read it. I scanned to get the gist and responded. Forgive, please. I've wasted time on other crank emails you've forwarded to us. Is there anything here that refutes Saddam being a self-preservationist to the point that he opposed all religious radicals? Everything I understand about Saddam's Iraq and radical Islam puts them at odds. Staring down a ten or twenty paragraph article whose second graf starts out, "Watching and listening to the Democrat Party candidates is tantamount to enduring the Chinese water torture," I hope you'll forgive me for taking it as the sort of radical right crank emails you usually post here.

    If there's something new in this, summarize it please. I'd love it if an actual debate happened this year, though that looks less and less likely all the time.
     
  5. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    This treatise is historical. It traces the justification for the War on Terrorism back to the 700s-- not 9/11. It indicates that the motivation for these terrorists stretches back that far and that it is not all about American brutishness-- as the Democrats would have us believe... thus the sarcasm about Democratic candidates.

    Try reading it... :)
     
  6. Batman Jones

    Batman Jones Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 1999
    Messages:
    15,937
    Likes Received:
    5,488
    Tell you what, giddyup. Give me a meaningful response to my thread about Bush passing up three chances to hit one of the most wanted terrorists in order to maintain a justification for the Iraq war and I'll read your next five longwinded email propaganda posts. For real. And I'll give a sincere response. But not before that. When the second of twenty or so paragraphs starts out that way I know what I'm reading. I'll still read it though if you'll read my thread and respond. It's amazing to me that more people didn't have anything to say about the most damning accusation of the pre-war season.
     
  7. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    I'll do it, but you don't have to read anything you don't want to. I'm not about that.

    BTW, I've only posted a few of these things that have been submitted to the scrutiy of Snopes. One was worthy of discussion for it's content regardless of the nature of its origin. A couple had questionable factual data... which was clearned up in this place (a great service to these readers if not the entire world). And lastly, only this piece to my recollection is of any significant length.

    However, I think that the point of this essay may go a long way towards answering the question you have posed about why Bush passed up an opportunity. It's about the big picture.
     
  8. Batman Jones

    Batman Jones Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 1999
    Messages:
    15,937
    Likes Received:
    5,488
    Answer that big picture stuff in your own words (in my thread or yours) and let's have a good old fashioned debate and discussion. I'm hesitant to believe anything you could say would justify passing up three clear shots at the guy who sawed off an American's head (and was probably responsible for many other heinous acts since we decided not to hit him), but I'm willing to listen to arguements.
     
  9. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    He hadn't sawed of anyone's head (that we know of) when those decisions were made. I'm not a military strategist, but it seems like there is a lot of planning and timing that goes into these things.

    Another thing: you are taking for granted (while condeming Bush to the hilt) that the info on this terrorist was, in fact, correct. Did you see Colin Powell on Tim Russert? He re-asserted that all of his comments have been based on what was judged to be the best intel available at the time from all sources-- but primarily CIA. He acknowledge and regretted that much of it has proven to have been incorrect but that doesn't change the nature of the choices made at the time the intel was received.
     
  10. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,299
    Likes Received:
    8,141
    Any essay that starts with this level of self-importance is suspect. This is the same as saying "I'm a leader" or I'm in charge" or "I'm smart." If you are, people know it and if you aren't, people won't buy into it no matter how many times you say so.

    If this guy is not going to address the issues raised by Dems, why should we bother to address the issues raised by this guy? This is not a hostorical work, as good historians make valiant attempts to recognize their own biases and write as objectively as possible. By the tone of this paragraph, it is clear the rest of the article is a political screed aimed at eithr bashing Dems, supporting Bush, or both.

    Agreed.

    Oh, if only the Romans and early church fathers had some good moral tax cutting Republicans around we wouldn't have to deal with this whole Muslim thing now. (And by the way, those last two sentences are a bit eerie considering the favors this administration has doled out and who has received them.)


    There's a disconnect here... he's talking about conversions and the spread of the Islamic faith and then transistions seamlessly to war. Either war was the "practical" approach to spreading Islam or the reasons for the war are not elucidated. either way, this paragraph would draw the wrath of anyone concerned with logic.

    Wow. We go from the Fall of Constantinople to bashing Jimmy Carter in two paragraphs. And to think that after all this history, the actions of Jimmy Carter would be the sole cause of the radical movements we see today. Brilliant historical analysis.

    I was sort of following this until the United Nations bit. It's funny to me how Right-wingers detest and distrust the United Nations but the most important thing ever is to follow UN resolutions, even if they don't really say what you want them to say.

    But wait a second... wasn't evidence of this plan clear for centuries now? I can't believe this guy would actually agree with the liberals that Bush had enough knowledge before 9-11 to do something. I guess the great history of the Jihad was not written in triplicate, paired with actionable intelligence, and delivered to Condi's desk with a bright red bow.

    And the right accuses Dems of being subject to conspiracies? I also love the little jibe in there that equates being against the Iraq War with being anti-American. Giddy, if anything should have prevented you from posting this trash, this paragraph would be it. Did you even read the whole thing before you posted?

    Ah, back to the domino theory... and an ode to the great man W who has single-handedly protected us from the heathen. When speculation about the ultimate fate of OBL arises, the right claims we are trying to politicize it before it happens yet here we see this guy doing the same thing by implying that if Kerry wins there will be more terrorist attacks.

    What would a right-wing screed be without an attack on Church? The extra hit on Carter is a bonus. I'm not sure this is attriutable to sarcasm... I suspect there's more blind hate here.

    Bash French: check
    Doomsday scenario: check
    Raise the possibility of total UN control: check
    Democrats are dupes who are manipulated by Communists, er, Jihadists: check

    Giddy,

    That's the last time I'm playing.
     
  11. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,870
    Likes Received:
    36,425
    Good job RR, I would love to get a hold of this prior Larry Abraham masterpiece:

    I wonder if he blames Jews, Freemasons, or both?
     
  12. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    You guys attack the politics of this piece but not the history. It is I who described it as "historical" not the author. I meant just to distance it from pure politics. Yes, it has political underpinnings.

    What about the over-arching message of the centuries-long intention to rout out those who are not Muslim? Didn't Christians give that up?
     
  13. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Obviously, I am enjoying the pseudo-historical aspect, but giddy, be fair to others who don't have the same perverse obsession: How far into an 'historical' article in here would you get with an open mind if the article began:


    The United States and Neo-Slavery


    Everyone should read this, bookmark it, and send it to everyone they know before the election. It's that important.


    Listening to Republicans excuse evil so long as it's ours reminds me of the Nazi concentration camps. Their "yadda yadda" response to revalations about the systemic torture of innocents clearly shows how deep their belief in the absolute nature of good and evil actually run. Repeating any of this dumbfounding chatter is a disservice to all, so I'll let it lie on the ground where it belongs. I will, however, mention that the Dem leadership bears some responsibility themselves for letting the administration off the hook, and not pointing out the systemic evil of our society.

    We didn't start being evil in Iraq, but in fact....Giddy? WHy have youy stopped reading?!?!?
     
  14. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    Yeah! A giddyup email thread --- these are always great. :D :p
     
  15. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,870
    Likes Received:
    36,425
    His history is dead wrong. The Ummayad dynasty, which expanded Islam into Western Europe and the descendants of which ruled Spain for a long time, were relatively secular and tolerant of "peoples of the book" (jews & christians)

    Muslim spain, and the Cordoba caliphate particular, (aside from a few episodic interludes of crackdowns when rival tribes took control ) was a model of religious toleration and was an oasis of enlightenment in the dark ages, where Christians, Jews, & muslims lived together in the most civilized, technologically advanced, and prosperous city in the Western World.

    If you want to see intolerance and religious slaughter, loook to the Reconquista and the subsequent Inquisition, after the Christians took over and pretty much sent Spain back to the stone age, where it remained until about 40 years ago.
     
  16. GreenVegan76

    GreenVegan76 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,336
    Likes Received:
    1
  17. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ok, as I read, I'll address some historical aspects, as you have requested.


    1) The eastern Empire became christian in the 7th century!?!?!?
    What the hell happened between Theodosius and the Iconoclastic Controversy ?!!?!?

    2) "No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy." Completely subjective statement.

    3) Unvelievably skewed view of enforced conversion. For one thing, it varied from area to area, and in most Islam was spread by the sword much less than Christianity. The Islamic Arab state in the Levant pre-Crusades was so tolerant that regional Christians were among the greatest victims and largest complainers about the rule installed by the Crusades. There were, to be sure, exteme examples of religious bigotry, but nothing to compare with the reverse. The treatment of Jews at the hands of Christians vs. the Muslims at this time is a telling contrast. There was a massive, faith based expansion, but it's forced gains were largley territorial, not religious.

    4) "However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold..."

    Gotta love this kind of comment. Not even a passing mention of centuries of religious based invasions and atrocities in the region we call the Crusades, but after Suleyman's cannon get bogged in mud and he can't take Vienna, the West just becomes a massive, irrational scapegoat. Yep. Objective.

    Giddy, I'll try and read more later, but this is too much crap to take in at one time. There are just so many glaring problems and examples of ( witting or not) subjective bias evident to take it all that seriously as a premise.
     
  18. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Started just reading points at random: Here was the first line I read:





    The struggle against modernism soon focused on the ultra-popular Adolph Hitler of Germany. WIth his rejection of foreign power as a dterminant in Germany proper, and his industrious program of economic reform which stimulated a growth of industry and a reversal of recession unparalleled in history, Hitler came under fire from Western powers wanting to keep Germany in it's 19th century junker dominated state of desperation...



    *cough*

    Or maybe the Shah was a hard target, made so by decades of atrocities and supported by a US backed coup against ( non-religious ) popular government in 1951?

    Maybe that had something to do with it?

    Portraying the Shah as a victim due to his foreward thinking is absurd, and an example of why this article is absurd.
     
  19. mrpaige

    mrpaige Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2000
    Messages:
    8,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    I haven't read all the responses, but while I understand the worry that Saddam Hussein would be more than willing to support anti-American causes, one could argue that overthrowing his secular government makes it that much easier for those who wish to have a strict Islamic government presiding over Muslim-majority countries.
     
  20. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2

    "could"?


    ;)


    I'm starting to notice a pattern to some of your posts; you undercut strong arguments by 'the other side' in the manner of damning with faint praise or marginalizing while seeming to acknowledge.


    Prosecution of Mr. X for the murder of Mr. Y.

    Evidence comes to light that Mr. X was elsewhere at the time of the murder, while video cameras show Mr. Z killing Mr. Y.

    DA Paige, in his closing: " It should be noted however, when considering the facts, that one could conclude that Mr. X's role in the murder of Mr. Y might not have actually extended to pulling the trigger himself."

    Juror A; How objective! I like him! Let's do what he says and convict; no one that objective would lead us astray...


    :D ;)


    Mostly joking...
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now