I've recently been reading on the subject of the upcoming Russian Presidential elections, which will happen in slightly over 10 months. Multiple sources, claiming to be "close to Putin" are claiming that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has made up his mind to run for reelection as President.
They're saying the Putin sees current President Dmitri Medvedev as becoming too cocky. Last week, Medvedev went on record stating "A person who thinks he can stay in power indefinitely is a danger to society...Russian history shows that monopolizing power leads to stagnation or civil war." Neither potential candidate has at this time officially announced their intentions towards running or not running in 2012.
Many are predicting a power struggle next year. This is quite possible. I highly doubt that Putin will back down. He's now been "called out," if you will. Something that his mentality simply will not allow.
Both men are shaping their public image to appeal to a different demographic of voters. While Putin is all about appearing action-oriented and targets the older generations and nationalists, Medvedev is working the younger crowd. He promises to bring Russia into a high-tech future and uses his relative youthfulness (13 years younger than 58-year old Putin) and display his tech savvy.
A point that I found interesting is that Medvedev recently began wearing a bold bomber jacket that reads "Russia's Commander-in-Chief". One of the powers of Russia's CiC is the ability to fire the Prime Minister. A bold move, indeed. To do so would be a grave move on Medvedev's part, for Putin controls the justice system as well as the intelligence and police systems.
It would appear that Medvedev has indeed become arrogant. This says he will not choose against running for president. At the same time, Putin will clearly not back down. He's been challenged and Vladimir Putin is not one to step down in a confrontation. I don't see the assassination of Medvedev as a viable option, it will bring too much pressure onto Putin. Therefore, Medvedev will have nothing to fear and will continue on the course he appears to have chosen.
The buildup to the election and subsequently the election itself will prove to be very interesting. I'll surely have more to come about this in the months to come
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Militarization and Islamicization of Afghanistan
In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. American policy at the time dictated the containment of the Soviet Union as well as attempts to stop the spread of Communism or the growth of the USSR, a policy known as détente.
However, this event occurred only a few years after the end of the Vietnam War and President Jimmy Carter had begun a large-scale demilitarization program in the United States. The US was left with a much smaller military force, and in 1979, it was close to its smallest size during the demilitarization. Coupled with the fact that the United States was experiencing an economic recession, the US government lacked both the capital and military strength to intervene militarily against the Soviets.
Instead of direct military action, President Carter authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to execute a covert campaign to fight off the Soviet military. Before beginning the operation however, the CIA realized that they would have to find a way to mobilize a rebellion made up of so many ethnic groups. What did they have in common? The one common denominator between so many ethnic groups was religion: Islam. But the CIA did not see their type of Islam to be sufficiently radical. They decided to have the most conservative, most easily radicalized form of Islam imported from Saudi Arabia, the Salaf form.
The United States entered a secret alliance with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Saudi Arabia would provide the Salaf Islam, the funding, and personnel to fight against the Soviets; the United States would provide the weapons and training; and Pakistan would provide invaluable intelligence on the ground and a conduit for the American material. Because the CIA would not be able to bring weaponry straight into Afghanistan, they would have to bring the weapons into the country by land through Pakistan.
Citizens from other nations such as Syria, Yemen, Jordan and others came to join the fighting in Afghanistan. They called themselves the Mujahadeen; “someone who struggles.” American President Ronald Reagan referred to them as freedom fighters, and others called them holy warriors. The CIA trained the Mujahadeen well, but there was one problem. The terrain of Afghanistan is mainly mountainous, with few flatland areas. The Soviet military was forced to rely on Mi-24 attack helicopters rather than ground force. The Mi-24 was heavily armed and highly destructive; and both elements contributed to the fact that the Mujahadeen warriors were being utterly decimated.
After lengthy political and military debate, the United States provided Stinger surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems to the Mujahadeen. The Mujahadeen were able to rapidly turn the tables against the Soviets, using Stinger missiles to shoot down the MI-24 helicopters. Finally in 1989, 10 years after invading Afghanistan, the Soviets withdrew from the country in defeat in what could be called the USSR’s own Vietnam.
With the Soviet threat gone, the CIA immediately left the country, in effect abandoning the Mujahadeen. These jihadists were a rugged people, used to operating alone. This planted the seed of anger towards the United States, but there were problems beyond simple abandonment. When soldiers came into Afghanistan, they surrendered their passports to the CIA in exchange for false Afghan documents to prevent arrest for Soviet forces. However, after the Soviets withdrew, the host nations requested that the United States not return the passports to radicalized, militant soldiers. While the soldiers asked for their passports to be given back, the government decided to comply with the wishes of the host nations and denied the return of the passports. This was what truly began the militarization of Afghanistan.
In the 1990s, lawlessness and ethno-national conflict prevailed in Afghanistan. The Mujahadeen were not accustomed to a strong central authority. Guerrilla warfare is waged not by armies but by multiple small cells, meaning that there really is no strong leadership above the cell level. In 1994, the Taliban (“Students”) was formed for the purpose of returning law and order to the nation. In the beginning, the Taliban was well loved by the Afghan people. The Taliban is made up of mainly Pashtun people and practice extreme Salafist Islam. They eventually came to control 90% of Afghanistan, and began making radical changes such as banning soccer, turning soccer fields into arenas for public execution and not allowing women to work (which creates a problem because so many Afghan women are widowed).
In 1988, Osama Bin-Laden formed al Qaeda (“the Base”), made up of the foreign jihadists who came to Afghanistan to fight the USSR. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, creating fear in the international community that Iraq would continue on into Saudi Arabia, the holiest city of Islam. Osama Bin-Laden asked the Saudi government to allow his al Qaeda to protect Saudi Arabia, but at the same time President George Bush also petitioned to bring in the Marine Corps to defend Saudi Arabia. Due to the fact that the Marine Corps is a highly advanced force, as well as the fact that the United States gives so much money to Saudi Arabia, the Marine Corps was ultimately allowed to create a Shield to repel Iraq’s military were they to continue into Saudi Arabia.
This was the final catalyst for Osama Bin-Laden and his Taliban. Christian soldiers from the West were allowed into the holiest site of the Islam religion; while good Muslim soldiers were not. Osama Bin-Laden saw this as a choice of the Americans over the Muslim soldiers. Although Osama Bin-Laden had been considering the possibility of attacking the US as soon as 1983, this event made up his mind. There was going to be an attack on the US.
However, this event occurred only a few years after the end of the Vietnam War and President Jimmy Carter had begun a large-scale demilitarization program in the United States. The US was left with a much smaller military force, and in 1979, it was close to its smallest size during the demilitarization. Coupled with the fact that the United States was experiencing an economic recession, the US government lacked both the capital and military strength to intervene militarily against the Soviets.
Instead of direct military action, President Carter authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to execute a covert campaign to fight off the Soviet military. Before beginning the operation however, the CIA realized that they would have to find a way to mobilize a rebellion made up of so many ethnic groups. What did they have in common? The one common denominator between so many ethnic groups was religion: Islam. But the CIA did not see their type of Islam to be sufficiently radical. They decided to have the most conservative, most easily radicalized form of Islam imported from Saudi Arabia, the Salaf form.
The United States entered a secret alliance with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Saudi Arabia would provide the Salaf Islam, the funding, and personnel to fight against the Soviets; the United States would provide the weapons and training; and Pakistan would provide invaluable intelligence on the ground and a conduit for the American material. Because the CIA would not be able to bring weaponry straight into Afghanistan, they would have to bring the weapons into the country by land through Pakistan.
Citizens from other nations such as Syria, Yemen, Jordan and others came to join the fighting in Afghanistan. They called themselves the Mujahadeen; “someone who struggles.” American President Ronald Reagan referred to them as freedom fighters, and others called them holy warriors. The CIA trained the Mujahadeen well, but there was one problem. The terrain of Afghanistan is mainly mountainous, with few flatland areas. The Soviet military was forced to rely on Mi-24 attack helicopters rather than ground force. The Mi-24 was heavily armed and highly destructive; and both elements contributed to the fact that the Mujahadeen warriors were being utterly decimated.
After lengthy political and military debate, the United States provided Stinger surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems to the Mujahadeen. The Mujahadeen were able to rapidly turn the tables against the Soviets, using Stinger missiles to shoot down the MI-24 helicopters. Finally in 1989, 10 years after invading Afghanistan, the Soviets withdrew from the country in defeat in what could be called the USSR’s own Vietnam.
With the Soviet threat gone, the CIA immediately left the country, in effect abandoning the Mujahadeen. These jihadists were a rugged people, used to operating alone. This planted the seed of anger towards the United States, but there were problems beyond simple abandonment. When soldiers came into Afghanistan, they surrendered their passports to the CIA in exchange for false Afghan documents to prevent arrest for Soviet forces. However, after the Soviets withdrew, the host nations requested that the United States not return the passports to radicalized, militant soldiers. While the soldiers asked for their passports to be given back, the government decided to comply with the wishes of the host nations and denied the return of the passports. This was what truly began the militarization of Afghanistan.
In the 1990s, lawlessness and ethno-national conflict prevailed in Afghanistan. The Mujahadeen were not accustomed to a strong central authority. Guerrilla warfare is waged not by armies but by multiple small cells, meaning that there really is no strong leadership above the cell level. In 1994, the Taliban (“Students”) was formed for the purpose of returning law and order to the nation. In the beginning, the Taliban was well loved by the Afghan people. The Taliban is made up of mainly Pashtun people and practice extreme Salafist Islam. They eventually came to control 90% of Afghanistan, and began making radical changes such as banning soccer, turning soccer fields into arenas for public execution and not allowing women to work (which creates a problem because so many Afghan women are widowed).
In 1988, Osama Bin-Laden formed al Qaeda (“the Base”), made up of the foreign jihadists who came to Afghanistan to fight the USSR. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, creating fear in the international community that Iraq would continue on into Saudi Arabia, the holiest city of Islam. Osama Bin-Laden asked the Saudi government to allow his al Qaeda to protect Saudi Arabia, but at the same time President George Bush also petitioned to bring in the Marine Corps to defend Saudi Arabia. Due to the fact that the Marine Corps is a highly advanced force, as well as the fact that the United States gives so much money to Saudi Arabia, the Marine Corps was ultimately allowed to create a Shield to repel Iraq’s military were they to continue into Saudi Arabia.
This was the final catalyst for Osama Bin-Laden and his Taliban. Christian soldiers from the West were allowed into the holiest site of the Islam religion; while good Muslim soldiers were not. Osama Bin-Laden saw this as a choice of the Americans over the Muslim soldiers. Although Osama Bin-Laden had been considering the possibility of attacking the US as soon as 1983, this event made up his mind. There was going to be an attack on the US.
Thoughts on Afghanistan
Clear.
Hold.
Build.
Repeat.
Such is a day in the life of an American soldier somewhere in Afghanistan. Roads are laid down, schools are put up, medical treatments are given out and a bond has been created and continues to be strengthened between the Afghan people and the international military personnel living there.
Since the United States established a formal ground presence in the country nearly nine years ago, Afghanistan has shown much improvement. Through cash injection, the economy has been strengthened. Death squads which once roamed the streets killing each other in addition to innocent civilians have now been employed as local security forces, defending their home turf. This has made two contributions to Afghan improvement. First, it has strengthened the economy by creating jobs and therefore increasing cash flow. Secondly, to the safety of both Afghans and military personnel alike because rather than being paid ten dollars a day by the Taliban to become “ten dollar Talibs” and work as foot soldiers, they are being paid more per day for actual work. The abduction and trafficking in teenage boys for purpose of forced military service has greatly decreased. General conditions, welfare and rights of Afghan women have greatly improved. Overall, Afghanistan has become a much safer place.
This is not, however, the Afghanistan we see daily on television. The media chooses to instead show continued fighting, military failures and the much smaller, but present nonetheless, negative side of American involvement in the country. Such manipulation has caused public opinion of the war to falter and gradually drop. Critics say the people don’t want us there, we are achieving nothing and that the war has gone on too long. Are they correct?
When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned Americans people that we would be entering into a long war, no one really understood what “a long war” meant. The first Gulf War in 1991 was really the first so-called war that had ever been viewed in virtual real-time. Lasting only 96 hours, it really fooled America in regards to military might. Because of this misconception, Americans expected another 96-hour conflict. Obviously, this is not what they got.
Critics are only partially correct when they state that the people of Afghanistan do not want us there. First, one muster understand that there is no such thing as an ethnic Afghan. There are 35 different ethnic groups represented in Afghanistan, the Taliban are the ones who do not want us there, and they only make up a portion of a single ethnic group, the Pashtun. Most ordinary civilians do want an American presence because it is that presence that is keeping them safe.
Finally, there is the critique that nothing is being achieved. In terms of nation building, this is absolutely false. As shown in the second paragraph, Afghanistan as a whole is becoming a much better place to live. In terms of military objectives, this statement is correct to a point. However, it is not because our military forces do not have the capability to achieve victories and finish this fight. It is because our military forces are not allowed to do what is needed to win this war. In addition, American troops currently provide security from the Taliban for farmers, allowing them to grow crops other than opium (an industry that the Taliban is making $125 million a year on). This is slowly cutting down on the global trade in opiates and heroin.
Success in Afghanistan is obtainable. The current efforts to train Afghans to be capable of governing their own nation must be continued. Security forces and police forces are being created, and an Afghan government is already in place. The only way to success is through working with the indigenous peoples. Only after this process of education is finished will we be able to withdraw from the country.
Hold.
Build.
Repeat.
Such is a day in the life of an American soldier somewhere in Afghanistan. Roads are laid down, schools are put up, medical treatments are given out and a bond has been created and continues to be strengthened between the Afghan people and the international military personnel living there.
Since the United States established a formal ground presence in the country nearly nine years ago, Afghanistan has shown much improvement. Through cash injection, the economy has been strengthened. Death squads which once roamed the streets killing each other in addition to innocent civilians have now been employed as local security forces, defending their home turf. This has made two contributions to Afghan improvement. First, it has strengthened the economy by creating jobs and therefore increasing cash flow. Secondly, to the safety of both Afghans and military personnel alike because rather than being paid ten dollars a day by the Taliban to become “ten dollar Talibs” and work as foot soldiers, they are being paid more per day for actual work. The abduction and trafficking in teenage boys for purpose of forced military service has greatly decreased. General conditions, welfare and rights of Afghan women have greatly improved. Overall, Afghanistan has become a much safer place.
This is not, however, the Afghanistan we see daily on television. The media chooses to instead show continued fighting, military failures and the much smaller, but present nonetheless, negative side of American involvement in the country. Such manipulation has caused public opinion of the war to falter and gradually drop. Critics say the people don’t want us there, we are achieving nothing and that the war has gone on too long. Are they correct?
When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned Americans people that we would be entering into a long war, no one really understood what “a long war” meant. The first Gulf War in 1991 was really the first so-called war that had ever been viewed in virtual real-time. Lasting only 96 hours, it really fooled America in regards to military might. Because of this misconception, Americans expected another 96-hour conflict. Obviously, this is not what they got.
Critics are only partially correct when they state that the people of Afghanistan do not want us there. First, one muster understand that there is no such thing as an ethnic Afghan. There are 35 different ethnic groups represented in Afghanistan, the Taliban are the ones who do not want us there, and they only make up a portion of a single ethnic group, the Pashtun. Most ordinary civilians do want an American presence because it is that presence that is keeping them safe.
Finally, there is the critique that nothing is being achieved. In terms of nation building, this is absolutely false. As shown in the second paragraph, Afghanistan as a whole is becoming a much better place to live. In terms of military objectives, this statement is correct to a point. However, it is not because our military forces do not have the capability to achieve victories and finish this fight. It is because our military forces are not allowed to do what is needed to win this war. In addition, American troops currently provide security from the Taliban for farmers, allowing them to grow crops other than opium (an industry that the Taliban is making $125 million a year on). This is slowly cutting down on the global trade in opiates and heroin.
Success in Afghanistan is obtainable. The current efforts to train Afghans to be capable of governing their own nation must be continued. Security forces and police forces are being created, and an Afghan government is already in place. The only way to success is through working with the indigenous peoples. Only after this process of education is finished will we be able to withdraw from the country.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Exploring Islamist Terror Networks
We are living in a world that is plagued by the global threat of terrorism (“The indiscriminant use or threat of violence to advance social, political, economic or religious objectives by creating a climate of fear”) . No country in the world is safe from the constant fear of an attack. While terrorism is not central to any one group, faction or culture; a quick survey of world news would lead one to believe the most prevalent actors in the modern terrorist scene belong to what many would call the radical, Salafist-minded sect of the Muslim faith.
This is not to say that violent acts of terror are unique to Islam. But a closer look at its practitioners both now and in the past reveals, if not a tendency towards terrorism, at the least a widespread attitude of violence. The daily suicide bombings in parts of the world; constant shelling of Israeli schools; the 9/11 highjackings; the thousands of Christians killed in Nigeria during the implementation of Sharia law which maims and kills other Muslims; the millions of people (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) killed in ethnic cleansing, genocide and civil war. The list goes on and on. While this does not suggest every Muslim is willing to kill and ultimately die for the cause, is Islam really as peaceful as many think?
History shows that violent acts are the fundamental to Muslim thought and are not just contemporary phenomena. The 21st Century does not provide the first occurrence of Muslim hatred and actions against the United States and other Christian nations. In 1784, the United States began making a series of tribute payments to the Muslim-controlled Barbary States, which consisted of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and Morocco. The Barbary States provided a launching port for Muslim privateers who were wreaking havoc upon American and other Western nations’ merchant vessels operating in the area; in addition, between the years of the 1530 and 1780 over 1.25 million. Continued acts of piracy lead to the creation of the United States Navy. After a series of naval victories against the Barbary Coast Pirates, the United States ended tribute payments.
A current line of thinking states that the creation of Israel united the nations of Islam by providing a common enemy. Instead of constant civil war and fighting within the Arab states, they now focus their aggression on the Israeli people. Muslim leaders have openly expressed their desire to completely and entirely annihilate Israel from the face of the earth. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad stated:
“You are the heroes that guard Lebanon's sovereignty…You have proven that there no force in the world can beat you. The resistance of the Lebanese nation, drawn from faith in God, can stand up to any Israeli force – planes, tanks and ships…The Zionists planned to destroy this village, but it stood strong against the occupiers…The world should know the Zionists are mortal ... today the Lebanese nation is alive and is a role model for the regional nations…The whole world should know that the Zionists will eventually disappear and Bint Jbeil will remain alive.”
President Ahmedinejad also stated: “If the Zionist regime wants to repeat its past mistakes, this will constitute its demise and annihilation…With Allah's help the new Middle East will be a Middle East without Zionists and Imperialists.”
“It’s hard for ordinary Americans to understand the nature of the struggle when our leaders cling to a Disney version of Islam. President George W. Bush assures us that “the terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism...that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.” If so, a large part of the Islamic world has perverted these peaceful teachings to such an extent that one wonders in the so-called deviation isn’t actually the norm.”
These are just two examples of Muslim acts of aggression against non-Muslim nations. Many more examples are given throughout history, from the very creation of the Islamic ideology to current times. When one looks at the innumerable acts committed by Muslims, it becomes hard to believe that one or two groups perverting the peaceful teachings of Islam have existed for so long and done so many cruel things.
At the same time, many others hold to the belief that terrorism is in fact perpetrated by fringe radicals.
“…Although some Muslim leaders have criticized the terrorists, and even Saudi Arabia’s rulers have distanced themselves from the militants, other Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere have not denounced these acts, have been conspicuously silent or have indeed celebrated them. The terrorists’ strain of Islam is clearly not shared by most Muslims and is deeply unrepresentative of Islam’s glorious, civilized and peaceful past. But it surely represents a piece of Islam—a radical, fundamentalist part—that simply cannot be ignored or denied.”
This debate is one of the most central, fundamental foundations of any discussion on Islamist terror. It must first be decided if a mainstream Muslim theology promotes acts of violence? Only after this question is answered can any other question be answered or any defensive policies made. Many claim religious intolerance or bigotry at such a suggestion as a supposed radical few not actually being the culprits but more or less any Muslim, but consider this: Islam is not solely a religion. It is also a political system, a legal system (Sharia law), and an overall way of life. Making a claim of religious discrimination is really not accurate.
As to my own personal interpretation of this issue, Islam as a whole is a very turbulent and anti-Western ideology. “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (Qu’ran: 9:5) “The believers who did join the Ghazwa [Islamic raid or invasion] and those who fought are not equal in reward.” (Bukhari: V5B59N288) “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His Cause” (Qu’ran: 61:4) My research and own thought processes lead me to believe that, while obviously simply being a Muslim does not mean you are willing to murder others and become a terrorist, Muslim beliefs do preach such ideas; as evidenced many times throughout the Qur’an, in other scholarly writings and the fatwah, religious decrees given by religious and political authorities.
Another fact confirming my theory that Islamist terrorists can be recruited from anywhere in mainstream Muslim culture are the multiple elements of the foundational doctrine of jihad (a concept which roughly translates to ‘striving’, which defines any action taken in Allah’s name: be it proselytizing non-believers, making the pilgrimage to Mecca, praying daily or carrying out acts of terrorism). First, jihad is divided into both greater jihad and lesser jihad. Greater jihad refers to actions of a non-violent nature, such as spiritual education of non-Muslims. In contrast, lesser jihad refers to actions of a violent nature. Lesser jihad is further categorized as both offensive and defensive. Offensive jihad is as a volunteer-only movement aimed towards both the successful conversion of non-believers and the expansion of Islamic ideals in the world as well as the establishment of Islamic governments; however, this is still considered lesser jihad because the tactics used to accomplish the desired results are executed through violent measures. Defensive jihad is waged when an Islamic nation is threatened or invaded by outside forces, and is a mandated by the Qu’ran. All Muslims are required by Islamic tradition to participate in defensive jihad, meaning that any and all Muslims have a duty to strike back against the United States or any other nation occupying Islamic lands.
While Sageman’s Understanding Terror Networks points to the fact that the current jihad movement is aimed at a religious revival in the Muslim world and an expansion of Muslim beliefs to predominantly non-Muslim nations; his research, using all open source information, reveals some very interesting facts that change much of our previous knowledge of terrorism and those who perform terrorist acts. Contrary to traditional wisdom, most terrorists are not impoverished illiterates who spend their entire lives reading the Qu’ran. The majority of recruits are in their mid 20s, often married with children, college-educated, from middle to upper class families and were raised with a secular education/background.
In reality, terror networks operate in much the same way as a street gang. The leaders seek out younger men in the community who may have opportunity but don’t necessarily have a desirable home life and recruit them into what Sageman terms the “bunch of guys” group, whereas they meet a group of men such as themselves who quickly become family. The perceived radical beliefs are instilled in this “bunch of guys.” The individual does not necessarily come into the group with ideas of violence, but rather through spending time with their friends they, perhaps succumbing to peer pressure at times, gradually develop a group identity. Oftentimes they are told that through terrorist acts, they are able to create a utopian society where everything will be much better than even their newfound circumstances. Many Muslim terrorists who are recruited into the jihad movement are recruited in a foreign country. Here, they are even more vulnerable because, even though they may have a good home life, they are often homesick and possibly excluded in the new country due to their background, and ultimately seek companionship and acceptance in a nearby mosque.
To bring all of this information back into context, the debate between terrorists coming from a radical fringe versus terrorists being simply mainstream Muslims is a rather unsolvable one. No one will ever be to truly say with absolute certainty which idea is accurate, or if both are equally valid. Hopefully at this point, enough information has been given for one to make their own decision. The purpose is not to definitively say one way or another but to provide background on both the uncertainty of the issue and the complications which contribute.
Now that the primary question has been answered, we can move from the who and what to the why. There are several motivators behind why a person or group of likeminded individuals would commit acts of terrorism, all of which can be found exemplified in Middle Eastern terror networks.
• A political ideal, wherein an act of violence would be demonstrated to promote political change. This element can be found in every modern terrorist attack, because if the media will conceivably cover the event, the terrorist will attack. The likelihood of news exposure is very important to the planning of an attack. Examples of politically motivated groups are Hezzbolah and Hamas, who fight against the westernization and cultural change of their homeland.
• Liberation of land; when a group, calling themselves freedom fighters, commits acts of terror against a state that currently presides over land they claim as theirs. This can be seen with the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) in their continued guerilla attacks against Israel for the Gaza Strip.
• Religion, the most commonly referenced motivator behind Middle Eastern terror. Probably the best example of religious motivation in a terrorist group is Osama Bin Laden’s al Qaida.
Obviously, these are overlapping concepts. A single terrorist group cannot claim just one motivation method. Even though they may be considered as being motivated by a single factor, each element combines to make up the overall motivation of a terrorist network.
Globalization has added to the both the proliferation of terror and the ease of recruitment. Now that anyone can get onto the internet and communicate anonymously with anyone else anywhere in the world, communication is much easier. Due to the advent of advanced encryption systems such as Trucrypt and PGP, plans can be made that are virtually undiscoverable until they are executed. Anonymity is also contributed to division between the jihadists. When you are not recognizable, the tendency to use hate speech and other verbal harassment increases exponentially. Not only does this fact add to the division between groups but it is also leading us to what Sageman calls the “Leaderless Jihad.”
Islamist terror is a complex topic. A topic that is not “politically correct,” and therefore is not being discussed in many circles. Even the CIA is not allowed to train its officers on Islamist Extremism, a fact that T.J. Waters discusses in his book Class 11. We need to realize on a public stage that Islamist terrorists are in fact the main perpetrators of terrorism in the global arena. Until the US recognizes this crucial fact and takes moves to counter it, the terror threat will continue to increase.
This is not to say that violent acts of terror are unique to Islam. But a closer look at its practitioners both now and in the past reveals, if not a tendency towards terrorism, at the least a widespread attitude of violence. The daily suicide bombings in parts of the world; constant shelling of Israeli schools; the 9/11 highjackings; the thousands of Christians killed in Nigeria during the implementation of Sharia law which maims and kills other Muslims; the millions of people (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) killed in ethnic cleansing, genocide and civil war. The list goes on and on. While this does not suggest every Muslim is willing to kill and ultimately die for the cause, is Islam really as peaceful as many think?
History shows that violent acts are the fundamental to Muslim thought and are not just contemporary phenomena. The 21st Century does not provide the first occurrence of Muslim hatred and actions against the United States and other Christian nations. In 1784, the United States began making a series of tribute payments to the Muslim-controlled Barbary States, which consisted of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and Morocco. The Barbary States provided a launching port for Muslim privateers who were wreaking havoc upon American and other Western nations’ merchant vessels operating in the area; in addition, between the years of the 1530 and 1780 over 1.25 million. Continued acts of piracy lead to the creation of the United States Navy. After a series of naval victories against the Barbary Coast Pirates, the United States ended tribute payments.
A current line of thinking states that the creation of Israel united the nations of Islam by providing a common enemy. Instead of constant civil war and fighting within the Arab states, they now focus their aggression on the Israeli people. Muslim leaders have openly expressed their desire to completely and entirely annihilate Israel from the face of the earth. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad stated:
“You are the heroes that guard Lebanon's sovereignty…You have proven that there no force in the world can beat you. The resistance of the Lebanese nation, drawn from faith in God, can stand up to any Israeli force – planes, tanks and ships…The Zionists planned to destroy this village, but it stood strong against the occupiers…The world should know the Zionists are mortal ... today the Lebanese nation is alive and is a role model for the regional nations…The whole world should know that the Zionists will eventually disappear and Bint Jbeil will remain alive.”
President Ahmedinejad also stated: “If the Zionist regime wants to repeat its past mistakes, this will constitute its demise and annihilation…With Allah's help the new Middle East will be a Middle East without Zionists and Imperialists.”
“It’s hard for ordinary Americans to understand the nature of the struggle when our leaders cling to a Disney version of Islam. President George W. Bush assures us that “the terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism...that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.” If so, a large part of the Islamic world has perverted these peaceful teachings to such an extent that one wonders in the so-called deviation isn’t actually the norm.”
These are just two examples of Muslim acts of aggression against non-Muslim nations. Many more examples are given throughout history, from the very creation of the Islamic ideology to current times. When one looks at the innumerable acts committed by Muslims, it becomes hard to believe that one or two groups perverting the peaceful teachings of Islam have existed for so long and done so many cruel things.
At the same time, many others hold to the belief that terrorism is in fact perpetrated by fringe radicals.
“…Although some Muslim leaders have criticized the terrorists, and even Saudi Arabia’s rulers have distanced themselves from the militants, other Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere have not denounced these acts, have been conspicuously silent or have indeed celebrated them. The terrorists’ strain of Islam is clearly not shared by most Muslims and is deeply unrepresentative of Islam’s glorious, civilized and peaceful past. But it surely represents a piece of Islam—a radical, fundamentalist part—that simply cannot be ignored or denied.”
This debate is one of the most central, fundamental foundations of any discussion on Islamist terror. It must first be decided if a mainstream Muslim theology promotes acts of violence? Only after this question is answered can any other question be answered or any defensive policies made. Many claim religious intolerance or bigotry at such a suggestion as a supposed radical few not actually being the culprits but more or less any Muslim, but consider this: Islam is not solely a religion. It is also a political system, a legal system (Sharia law), and an overall way of life. Making a claim of religious discrimination is really not accurate.
As to my own personal interpretation of this issue, Islam as a whole is a very turbulent and anti-Western ideology. “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (Qu’ran: 9:5) “The believers who did join the Ghazwa [Islamic raid or invasion] and those who fought are not equal in reward.” (Bukhari: V5B59N288) “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His Cause” (Qu’ran: 61:4) My research and own thought processes lead me to believe that, while obviously simply being a Muslim does not mean you are willing to murder others and become a terrorist, Muslim beliefs do preach such ideas; as evidenced many times throughout the Qur’an, in other scholarly writings and the fatwah, religious decrees given by religious and political authorities.
Another fact confirming my theory that Islamist terrorists can be recruited from anywhere in mainstream Muslim culture are the multiple elements of the foundational doctrine of jihad (a concept which roughly translates to ‘striving’, which defines any action taken in Allah’s name: be it proselytizing non-believers, making the pilgrimage to Mecca, praying daily or carrying out acts of terrorism). First, jihad is divided into both greater jihad and lesser jihad. Greater jihad refers to actions of a non-violent nature, such as spiritual education of non-Muslims. In contrast, lesser jihad refers to actions of a violent nature. Lesser jihad is further categorized as both offensive and defensive. Offensive jihad is as a volunteer-only movement aimed towards both the successful conversion of non-believers and the expansion of Islamic ideals in the world as well as the establishment of Islamic governments; however, this is still considered lesser jihad because the tactics used to accomplish the desired results are executed through violent measures. Defensive jihad is waged when an Islamic nation is threatened or invaded by outside forces, and is a mandated by the Qu’ran. All Muslims are required by Islamic tradition to participate in defensive jihad, meaning that any and all Muslims have a duty to strike back against the United States or any other nation occupying Islamic lands.
While Sageman’s Understanding Terror Networks points to the fact that the current jihad movement is aimed at a religious revival in the Muslim world and an expansion of Muslim beliefs to predominantly non-Muslim nations; his research, using all open source information, reveals some very interesting facts that change much of our previous knowledge of terrorism and those who perform terrorist acts. Contrary to traditional wisdom, most terrorists are not impoverished illiterates who spend their entire lives reading the Qu’ran. The majority of recruits are in their mid 20s, often married with children, college-educated, from middle to upper class families and were raised with a secular education/background.
In reality, terror networks operate in much the same way as a street gang. The leaders seek out younger men in the community who may have opportunity but don’t necessarily have a desirable home life and recruit them into what Sageman terms the “bunch of guys” group, whereas they meet a group of men such as themselves who quickly become family. The perceived radical beliefs are instilled in this “bunch of guys.” The individual does not necessarily come into the group with ideas of violence, but rather through spending time with their friends they, perhaps succumbing to peer pressure at times, gradually develop a group identity. Oftentimes they are told that through terrorist acts, they are able to create a utopian society where everything will be much better than even their newfound circumstances. Many Muslim terrorists who are recruited into the jihad movement are recruited in a foreign country. Here, they are even more vulnerable because, even though they may have a good home life, they are often homesick and possibly excluded in the new country due to their background, and ultimately seek companionship and acceptance in a nearby mosque.
To bring all of this information back into context, the debate between terrorists coming from a radical fringe versus terrorists being simply mainstream Muslims is a rather unsolvable one. No one will ever be to truly say with absolute certainty which idea is accurate, or if both are equally valid. Hopefully at this point, enough information has been given for one to make their own decision. The purpose is not to definitively say one way or another but to provide background on both the uncertainty of the issue and the complications which contribute.
Now that the primary question has been answered, we can move from the who and what to the why. There are several motivators behind why a person or group of likeminded individuals would commit acts of terrorism, all of which can be found exemplified in Middle Eastern terror networks.
• A political ideal, wherein an act of violence would be demonstrated to promote political change. This element can be found in every modern terrorist attack, because if the media will conceivably cover the event, the terrorist will attack. The likelihood of news exposure is very important to the planning of an attack. Examples of politically motivated groups are Hezzbolah and Hamas, who fight against the westernization and cultural change of their homeland.
• Liberation of land; when a group, calling themselves freedom fighters, commits acts of terror against a state that currently presides over land they claim as theirs. This can be seen with the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) in their continued guerilla attacks against Israel for the Gaza Strip.
• Religion, the most commonly referenced motivator behind Middle Eastern terror. Probably the best example of religious motivation in a terrorist group is Osama Bin Laden’s al Qaida.
Obviously, these are overlapping concepts. A single terrorist group cannot claim just one motivation method. Even though they may be considered as being motivated by a single factor, each element combines to make up the overall motivation of a terrorist network.
Globalization has added to the both the proliferation of terror and the ease of recruitment. Now that anyone can get onto the internet and communicate anonymously with anyone else anywhere in the world, communication is much easier. Due to the advent of advanced encryption systems such as Trucrypt and PGP, plans can be made that are virtually undiscoverable until they are executed. Anonymity is also contributed to division between the jihadists. When you are not recognizable, the tendency to use hate speech and other verbal harassment increases exponentially. Not only does this fact add to the division between groups but it is also leading us to what Sageman calls the “Leaderless Jihad.”
Islamist terror is a complex topic. A topic that is not “politically correct,” and therefore is not being discussed in many circles. Even the CIA is not allowed to train its officers on Islamist Extremism, a fact that T.J. Waters discusses in his book Class 11. We need to realize on a public stage that Islamist terrorists are in fact the main perpetrators of terrorism in the global arena. Until the US recognizes this crucial fact and takes moves to counter it, the terror threat will continue to increase.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Death Penalty
Hey guys. Sorry I've been flying under the radar for like what, two weeks now? Unfortunately college is getting the best of me, which I didn't really plan to happen but hey, to quote the movie I'm watching "you can't fight fate."
Ok, so last week for extra credit in my International Relations course, we watched a presentation (live) from a man named Juan Melendes. Juan was wrongly convicted of murder first, due to the information from a police informer, who all the time had a grudge against Juan. He was sentenced to death in prison in a Florida court (where the murder took place) and was placed on death row, where he was incarcerated for 17 years, 8 months and 1 day. All of this could simply have been avoided had the prosecutor OR Juan's defense attorney had not withheld evidence that conclusively proved the murder was not committed by Juan, one month prior to the original trial.
Anyways, enough on one specific case. I was assigned to write an opinion report on corporal punishment. Juan's presentation brought up a lot of issues that I hadn't really thought of, but I have to say I'm still in favor of execution for certain offenses.
First of all, there is the moral issue. There have been 138 cases of former death row inmates being released because they ended up being proven innocent since the year 1973. Who knows how many more innocents have actually been executed. So should we entirely abolish the system because of the possibility of more cases of innocence? No, I don't believe so. There is a degree of inherent risk in everything, and while I'm not saying I don't care about an innocent man being executed, it is a calculated risk we must take. Currently, the only capital offense recognized in the United States is aggravated murder/first degree murder (and in some rare cases, felony murder and a contract killing). Let's break that down. Typically, murder first is sentenced in cases involving premeditation. The same concept of premeditation obviously applies with contract killing, but I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what "felony murder" is. The people we're talking about have absolutely no regard for human life. They can say "oh I'm so sorry" and blah blah blah but guess what, you could have stopped at any time and not committed the murder. Execution of such violent offenders ensures that there will be no further crimes from these individuals. It can't be argued that the death penalty is inhumane. Lethal injection is designed to be painless, and the electric chair is on its way out. But before an inmate is executed, they're given Valium or another sedative to "relax them". Do these animals give a sedative to their victims before they commit heinous, evil and twisted acts? No!
The legal system needs to be fixed, and not in the way politicians do with elections. As does the investigation process. Case in point; when Illinois first instituted the death penalty, there were so many inmates on death row, the process ended up being frozen while local law enforcement could investigate the cases (again) to see who was actually guilty and who was not. Another example of the legal system needing overhauling is what I stated above with Juan Melendes. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney were in possession of evidence implicating another man in the murder, one month prior to Juan's original trial. Also, deserving mention is the fact that Juan is a Puerto Ricano, and did not speak hardly any English at the time of his trial. Was he given a court interpreter? He sure wasn't. How can you expect to hold a free trial with a foreign man who does not even understand the concept of deportation?
What could be easily argued by the anti-death penalty camp is economics. Currently in the state of Colorado, it costs 35 thousand dollars per year to house one inmate. To execute them, the standard price is 2-3 million. This is driven by the lawyers, and the price is largely paid upfront, due to the much larger amount of resources thrown into a corporal punishment case than into any others. Also contributing to the price tag is the fact that death row inmates are given more appeal processes than non-death row prisoners. I have no way to realistically counter argue. It costs more to execute a prisoner than keep them for the rest of their life. However, the death penalty should be sentenced to criminals that are obviously guilty of the crimes they committed. In less-certain cases, there should be more investigation before the trial, so that the trial can hopefully be more conclusive. This is the way to cut out most if not all wrongfully-sentenced persons.
Overall, I think the choice is clear. I am 100% for the execution of evil men (and women), any less would be immoral, unjust and most importantly spitting in the face of the victims' families.
A good death penalty resource I came across in research
Ok, so last week for extra credit in my International Relations course, we watched a presentation (live) from a man named Juan Melendes. Juan was wrongly convicted of murder first, due to the information from a police informer, who all the time had a grudge against Juan. He was sentenced to death in prison in a Florida court (where the murder took place) and was placed on death row, where he was incarcerated for 17 years, 8 months and 1 day. All of this could simply have been avoided had the prosecutor OR Juan's defense attorney had not withheld evidence that conclusively proved the murder was not committed by Juan, one month prior to the original trial.
Anyways, enough on one specific case. I was assigned to write an opinion report on corporal punishment. Juan's presentation brought up a lot of issues that I hadn't really thought of, but I have to say I'm still in favor of execution for certain offenses.
First of all, there is the moral issue. There have been 138 cases of former death row inmates being released because they ended up being proven innocent since the year 1973. Who knows how many more innocents have actually been executed. So should we entirely abolish the system because of the possibility of more cases of innocence? No, I don't believe so. There is a degree of inherent risk in everything, and while I'm not saying I don't care about an innocent man being executed, it is a calculated risk we must take. Currently, the only capital offense recognized in the United States is aggravated murder/first degree murder (and in some rare cases, felony murder and a contract killing). Let's break that down. Typically, murder first is sentenced in cases involving premeditation. The same concept of premeditation obviously applies with contract killing, but I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what "felony murder" is. The people we're talking about have absolutely no regard for human life. They can say "oh I'm so sorry" and blah blah blah but guess what, you could have stopped at any time and not committed the murder. Execution of such violent offenders ensures that there will be no further crimes from these individuals. It can't be argued that the death penalty is inhumane. Lethal injection is designed to be painless, and the electric chair is on its way out. But before an inmate is executed, they're given Valium or another sedative to "relax them". Do these animals give a sedative to their victims before they commit heinous, evil and twisted acts? No!
The legal system needs to be fixed, and not in the way politicians do with elections. As does the investigation process. Case in point; when Illinois first instituted the death penalty, there were so many inmates on death row, the process ended up being frozen while local law enforcement could investigate the cases (again) to see who was actually guilty and who was not. Another example of the legal system needing overhauling is what I stated above with Juan Melendes. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney were in possession of evidence implicating another man in the murder, one month prior to Juan's original trial. Also, deserving mention is the fact that Juan is a Puerto Ricano, and did not speak hardly any English at the time of his trial. Was he given a court interpreter? He sure wasn't. How can you expect to hold a free trial with a foreign man who does not even understand the concept of deportation?
What could be easily argued by the anti-death penalty camp is economics. Currently in the state of Colorado, it costs 35 thousand dollars per year to house one inmate. To execute them, the standard price is 2-3 million. This is driven by the lawyers, and the price is largely paid upfront, due to the much larger amount of resources thrown into a corporal punishment case than into any others. Also contributing to the price tag is the fact that death row inmates are given more appeal processes than non-death row prisoners. I have no way to realistically counter argue. It costs more to execute a prisoner than keep them for the rest of their life. However, the death penalty should be sentenced to criminals that are obviously guilty of the crimes they committed. In less-certain cases, there should be more investigation before the trial, so that the trial can hopefully be more conclusive. This is the way to cut out most if not all wrongfully-sentenced persons.
Overall, I think the choice is clear. I am 100% for the execution of evil men (and women), any less would be immoral, unjust and most importantly spitting in the face of the victims' families.
A good death penalty resource I came across in research
Thursday, September 9, 2010
LAPD Shoots Knife Wielding Suspect
I was looking at the Fox News website a short while ago when I came across the following article. I wasn't originally planning on writing anything about it until the story was mentioned on Glenn Beck's radio show and I decided that if it's getting attention there, I might as well give it some as well. However, I can't find it on any national networks outside of Fox.
According to the reports, officer(s) with a bicycle unit with the LAPD were alerted to a man with a knife, threatening nearby people, at approximately 1 pm Tuesday afternoon close to MacArthur Park. Commands were given in both English and Spanish to drop the weapon, but instead, 37 year-old Guatemalan immigrant Manuel Jamines "raised the knife above his head and lunged at Officer Frank Hernandez, a 13-year veteran of the department". This report was corroborated by eyewitness accounts from six civilians, nine police personnel and two fire department staff, indicating Officer Hernandez fired twice "in immediate defense of life". Jamines died on the scene. Investigators recovered a 6-inch knife, covered in blood, at the scene but did not know where the blood came from.
A retired police officer called into Glenn's show and said that from his experience, "a suspect at 15 feet with a knife, unless you're extremely lucky, is going to kill you."
So what happened? Riots against the police, of course. Rioters chucked rocks at law enforcement and reporters. Twenty-two arrests were reported Tuesday night, and two less-than-lethal foam projectiles were fired into crowds.
I'm not racist in any ways, I have no problem with Hispanics, black, Muslims, any of that. But I'm sorry, this goes to show you exactly why our borders need to be given tighter security and more attention. If you look at violent crime in this nation, so many are perpetrated by illegal Hispanics (largely Mexican), largely Hispanic gangs, etc. Or how about the 72 murdered Mexican laborers recently found? Those who come to our country illegally (and I've known some of these people, so I'm fairly confident in "stereotyping") do not care about our country. They do not hold it as theirs, they see it as someone elses' to do with whatever they please. Again, I'm not knocking Hispanics. I'm knocking those Hispanics who commit crimes, not only in my homeland but in theirs.
LA Times op-ed
LA Times news article
According to the reports, officer(s) with a bicycle unit with the LAPD were alerted to a man with a knife, threatening nearby people, at approximately 1 pm Tuesday afternoon close to MacArthur Park. Commands were given in both English and Spanish to drop the weapon, but instead, 37 year-old Guatemalan immigrant Manuel Jamines "raised the knife above his head and lunged at Officer Frank Hernandez, a 13-year veteran of the department". This report was corroborated by eyewitness accounts from six civilians, nine police personnel and two fire department staff, indicating Officer Hernandez fired twice "in immediate defense of life". Jamines died on the scene. Investigators recovered a 6-inch knife, covered in blood, at the scene but did not know where the blood came from.
A retired police officer called into Glenn's show and said that from his experience, "a suspect at 15 feet with a knife, unless you're extremely lucky, is going to kill you."
So what happened? Riots against the police, of course. Rioters chucked rocks at law enforcement and reporters. Twenty-two arrests were reported Tuesday night, and two less-than-lethal foam projectiles were fired into crowds.
I'm not racist in any ways, I have no problem with Hispanics, black, Muslims, any of that. But I'm sorry, this goes to show you exactly why our borders need to be given tighter security and more attention. If you look at violent crime in this nation, so many are perpetrated by illegal Hispanics (largely Mexican), largely Hispanic gangs, etc. Or how about the 72 murdered Mexican laborers recently found? Those who come to our country illegally (and I've known some of these people, so I'm fairly confident in "stereotyping") do not care about our country. They do not hold it as theirs, they see it as someone elses' to do with whatever they please. Again, I'm not knocking Hispanics. I'm knocking those Hispanics who commit crimes, not only in my homeland but in theirs.
LA Times op-ed
LA Times news article
Qur'an Burning in Florida
I'm sure most of you have heard of this story in which a Florida pastor, Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Centre, is planning on burning copies of Islam's holy Book, the Qur'an, on Saturday; which is also the ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (I make note of that fact because apparently a large number of Americans have forgotten exactly what happened that day). I'll come right out and be the first to admit, yes, Christians are still persecuting others. However, there is a slight difference here. The Bible is not preaching the murder of other faiths, and mainstream Christian is not participating, it is the action of a (very) small number of radicals.
This comes right at a time when our nation is all but up in arms about the proposed construction of the 'Cordoba House', an Islamic cultural center/place of worship. You know, what really gets to me about this whole controversy is that millions upon millions of Americans (one in seven, according to a CNN poll I linked to earlier this month on my NYC Mosque Debate post) are against this building and no attention is paid to all of them; but suddenly this pastor, with a congregation of about 50 people, suddenly speaks for an entire nation??
I'm not going to get into whether or not this is a good idea, or if it is morally right, because I think we can all agree that it's not. If you're for the idea of burning the Qur'an, what would you say if Muslims wanted to burn the Bible (or whichever holy book you believe in)? Would you be all for it? Would you allow them to do so without attempting to somehow stop it? The pastor is (from what I
heard on the Glenn Beck radio show) quoting Acts 19:19. Let's see here, I'll give you Acts 19:19 from the Authorized King James Version. "Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver." There you have it folks, "many of them". This is NOT talking about Christians going out and burning books of other people, it is talking about the people burning their own books. If you hear anyone arguing over this verse and whether or not it gives Jones right to burn the Qur'an, PLEASE tell them what the truth is.
General David Petraeus has spoken against the action, warning that it may lead to further attacks on American troops. State Department is warning Americans traveling abroad to "be alert" due to the pastor's actions.
This has the making of a very interesting story, and I hope we all remain vigilant in the next few days to see what will happen, both in Florida and the rest of the world.
A few other sources of the story:
CNN
jihadwatch.org
This comes right at a time when our nation is all but up in arms about the proposed construction of the 'Cordoba House', an Islamic cultural center/place of worship. You know, what really gets to me about this whole controversy is that millions upon millions of Americans (one in seven, according to a CNN poll I linked to earlier this month on my NYC Mosque Debate post) are against this building and no attention is paid to all of them; but suddenly this pastor, with a congregation of about 50 people, suddenly speaks for an entire nation??
I'm not going to get into whether or not this is a good idea, or if it is morally right, because I think we can all agree that it's not. If you're for the idea of burning the Qur'an, what would you say if Muslims wanted to burn the Bible (or whichever holy book you believe in)? Would you be all for it? Would you allow them to do so without attempting to somehow stop it? The pastor is (from what I
heard on the Glenn Beck radio show) quoting Acts 19:19. Let's see here, I'll give you Acts 19:19 from the Authorized King James Version. "Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver." There you have it folks, "many of them". This is NOT talking about Christians going out and burning books of other people, it is talking about the people burning their own books. If you hear anyone arguing over this verse and whether or not it gives Jones right to burn the Qur'an, PLEASE tell them what the truth is.
General David Petraeus has spoken against the action, warning that it may lead to further attacks on American troops. State Department is warning Americans traveling abroad to "be alert" due to the pastor's actions.
This has the making of a very interesting story, and I hope we all remain vigilant in the next few days to see what will happen, both in Florida and the rest of the world.
A few other sources of the story:
CNN
jihadwatch.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)