Common Logical Fallacies Made By Muslims

Common Logical Fallacies Made By Muslims

by Robert A. Morey
© 1996 Research and Education Foundation

Christians must be prepared to answer the typical objections made against the Gospel. Most of the objections are based on simple logical fallacies. The following is a list of some of the most common fallacies used by Muslims.

Note: The average Muslim does not know that his arguments are logically erroneous. He is sincere in his beliefs. Thus you must be patient and kind in sharing with him why his arguments are invalid.

1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.

Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and The Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.

Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.

2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing.
Circle If you end where you began, you got nowhere.

Examples:
#1 Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah.
#2 Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad.
#3 Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam.
3. False Analogy: Comparing two things as if they are parallel when they are not really the same at all.
Examples:
#1 Many Muslims erroneously assume that Muslims and Christians share the same concepts of God, revelation, inspiration, textual preservation, the Bible, prophethood, biblical history, conversion, etc...

#2 Because a false analogy is drawn between Islam and Christianity, some Muslims think that any argument which refutes the Qur'an will likewise refute the Bible; any argument which refutes Muhammad will also refute Jesus Christ, etc...

#3 For example, many Muslims claim that Muhammad and all prophets were sinless. They even deny that Abraham was an idol worshipper. Thus when a Christian points out all the wicked things that Muhammad did (mass murder, child abuse, lying, etc.), the Muslims will say, "If you are right, then you must also reject your biblical prophets for doing wicked things as well."

What he is really saying is, "If you reject my prophet, then you must reject your prophets as well. If Muhammad was a false prophet, then your prophets are false as well."

The root problem is that the Muslim concept of prophethood is not the same as the Christian concept of prophethood. We teach that prophets sin like anyone else. Thus while Islam is refuted by the sins of Muhammad, Christianity is not jeopardized at all. The Muslim is guilty of setting up a "false analogy."

Whenever a Muslim responds to a Christian attack on the Qur'an, Muhammad, or Allah by flipping the argument around and applying it to the Bible, Jesus or the Trinity as if Islam and Christianity either stand or fall together, he is guilty of the fallacy of false analogy. Islam can be false and Christianity be true at the same time.
4. The Fallacy of Irrelevance: When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.
Examples:
#1 Some Muslims argue, "The Qur'an is the Word of God because the text of the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly." This argument is erroneous for two reasons:

a. Factually, the text of the Qur'an has not been preserved perfectly. The text has additions, deletions, conflicting manuscripts, and variant readings like any other ancient writing.

b. Logically, it is irrelevant whether the text of the Qur'an has been preserved because preservation does not logically imply inspiration. A book can be perfectly copied without implying its inspiration.

#2 When Muslims attack the character and motives of anyone who criticizes Islam, they are using irrelevant arguments. The character of someone is no indication of whether he is telling you the truth. Good people can lie and evil people can tell the truth. Thus whenever a Muslim uses slurs such as "mean," "dishonest," "racist," "liar," "deceptive," etc., he is not only committing a logical fallacy but also revealing that he cannot intellectually defend his beliefs.

#3 When confronted with the pagan origins of the Qur'an, some Muslims defend the Qur'an by answering, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?"

This argument is erroneous for several reasons.

a. It is a false analogy to parallel the pagan origins of the rites commanded in the Qur'an with the present day holidays nowhere commanded in the Bible. What some modern day Christians do on Dec. 25th has no logical bearing on what the Qur'an commands Muslims to do (eg. the Pilgrimage, the Fast, etc.).

b. It is irrelevant that some Christians choose to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since the Bible nowhere commands it, it is a matter of personal freedom. But Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to believe and practice many things which came from the paganism of that day.

c. The Muslim by using this argument is actually admitting that the Qur'an was not "sent down" but fabricated from pagan sources. This means he has become an unbeliever (Surah 25:4-6).

#4 Some Muslims argue that the Qur'an is the Word of God because it contains some historically or scientifically accurate statements. This argument is irrelevant. Just because a book is correct on some historical or scientific point does not mean it is inspired. You cannot take the attributes of a part and apply it to the whole. A book can be a mixture of true and false statements. Thus it is a logical fallacy to argue that the entire Qur'an is true if it makes one true statement.

When a Muslim argues that history or science "proves" the Qur'an, this actually means that he is acknowledging that history and science can likewise refute the Qur'an. If the Qur'an contains just one historical error or one scientific error, then the Qur'an is not the Word of God. Verification and falsification go hand in hand.

#5 The present meaning of a word is irrelevant to what it meant in ancient times. The word "Allah" is a good example. When confronted by the historical evidence that the word was used by pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times to refer to a high god who was married to the sun-goddess and had three daughters, some Muslims will quote dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to prove (sic) that "Allah means God." They are thus using modern definitions to define what the word meant over a thousand years ago! What "Allah" means now has no bearing on what it meant before Muhammad.

5. The Fallacy of Equivocation: If we assume that everyone has the same definition of such words as God, Jesus, revelation, inspiration, prophet, miracle, etc., we are committing a very simple logical fallacy.

#1 When a Muslim says, "Christians and Muslims worship the same God," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. While Christians worship the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Muslims worship a Unitarian deity. Obviously, they are worshipping different Gods.

#2 When a Muslim says, "We believe in Jesus too," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not the Jesus of the Bible. Islam preaches "another Jesus" (II Cor. 11:4). The Jesus of the Bible is God the Son who died on the cross for our sins. But the "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not God the Son and he did not die on the cross for our sins. Thus it is erroneous for Muslims to tell Christians that they believe in Jesus, too.

#3 When a Muslim assumes that Christians have the same concept of revelation as Muslims, he is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. According to Islam, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah and has no earthly sources. When we prove that it comes from earthly sources, this threatens the inspiration of the Qur'an.

On the other hand, the Bible does not claim that it dropped out of heaven one day. It openly quotes from earthly sources. It uses pre-existing sources without any difficulty whatsoever, Thus while the Qur'an is threatened by historical sources, the Bible is actually confirmed by them.

#4 When a Muslims tells you that the word "Allah" has only one meaning: "the one, true, universal God," he is assuming a fallacy. The word "allah" has many different meanings.

a. It can be used as a generic term like the English word "God." Thus it can be applied to any god or goddess regardless if a true or false god is in view. (ex. The "Allahs" of Hinduism.)

b. The Nation of Islam uses it to refer to Wallace Dodd Ford, Elijah Muhammad, and Louis Farrakhan as "Allah" and teaches that all black people are "Allahs."

c. It has been used by some Christians in Arabic speaking countries as a generic name for the Holy Trinity.

d. It was used in pre-Islamic times by pagan Arabs to refer to the moon-god who was the father of al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat.

e. It is used by Muslims to refer to their god.

Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. The Christian worships the Holy Trinity while the Muslim worships a unitarian deity.

6. The Fallacy of Force: The Qur'an commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and apostates (Surah 5:33; 9:5, 29).

Some Muslims use a false analogy to answer this argument. They respond by saying, "Well, what about the Crusades? You Christians use violence just like Muslims."

It is logically erroneous to set up a parallel between Muslims killing people in obedience to the Qur'an and Christians killing people in disobedience to the Bible. While the Qur'an commands Jihad, the New Testament forbids it.

7. The Fallacy Of Confusing Questions of Fact with Questions of Relevance: Whether something is factually true is totally different from the issue of whether you feel it is relevant. The two issues must be kept separate.

Examples:
#1 When a Christian argues that some of the beliefs and rituals of the Qur'an came from pre-Islamic Arab paganism, the Muslim will deny it at first. But as more and more evidence is given, the Muslim will often do a flip-flop and begin arguing, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?" The Muslim has now committed three fallacies:

a. The "So what!" argument is dealing with the issue of relevance, not fact. You must stop the Muslim at that point and ask him, "Since you are now dealing with the issue of whether the pagan origins of the Qur'an are relevant, does this mean that you are now agreeing to the fact of the pagan origins of Islam?"

b. The Muslim has also committed the fallacy of equivocation, The Bible is not threatened by historical sources. It freely refers to them and even quotes them (Acts 17: 28). But the Qur'an denies that it has any earthly historical sources (Surah 25:4-6).

c. He also committed the fallacy of false analogy. The Bible and the Qur'an are two totally different books. The inspiration of the Bible does not depend upon the fate of the Qur'an because what Muslims claim for the Qur'an is not what Christians claim for the Bible.

8. Phonic Fallacies: The phonetic sound of a word should not be used to twist its meaning. For example,

a. Some Muslims try to prove that the word "Allah" is in the Greek New Testament because of the Greek word alla. But while the word is pronounced "alla," it only means "but" in Greek. It has nothing to do with the Arabic "Allah."

b. Some Muslims have claimed that the word "Allah" is in the Bible because the Biblical word "Allelujah." They then mispronounce the word as "Allah-lujah" But "Allelujah" is not a compound Arabic word with "Allah" being the first part of the word. It is a Hebrew word with the name of God being "JAH" (or Yahweh) and the verb "alle" meaning "praise to." It means "praise to Yahweh." The Arabic word "Allah" is not in the word.

c. The same error is found in the Muslim argument that the word "Baca" (Psa. 94:6) really means "Mecca." The valley of Baca is in northern Israel.

d. Some Muslims have tried to go from "Amen" to "Ahmed" to "Mohammed!" Such nonsense is beyond belief.

9. "Red Herring" Arguments: When a Muslim is asked to defend the Qur'an, if he turns around and attacks the reliability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Crusades, etc., he is introducing irrelevant issues that have no logical bearing on the truthfulness of Islam. He is trying to divert attention from Islam to other issues.

Furthermore, he is assuming that if he can refute the Bible, then the Qur'an wins by default. If he can refute the Trinity, then Allah wins by default. But this is logically erroneous. You cannot prove your position by refuting someone else's position. The Bible and the Qur'an could both be wrong. Muslims must prove their own book.
10. Straw Man Arguments: When you put a false argument into the mouth of your opponent and then proceed to knock it down, you have only created a "straw man" argument, Muslims sometimes either misunderstand or deliberately misquote the arguments Christians give them.
Example:
Some Muslims have built a "straw man" argument that claims that we teach, "The Qur'an teaches that Allah is the Moon-god and that Muslims knowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters." They then knock down this "straw man" argument and claim victory. Of course, we never said such nonsense. What we have said is that while the Qur'an claims that Allah is God and Muslims think they are worshipping the one true God, in reality they are worshipping a false god preached by a false prophet according to a false book.

Conclusion

The average Muslim has been deceived by Muslim apologists who use such logical fallacies without regard to reason, fact or honesty. But there are many Muslims who want to be rational in their religion and thus have an open mind to rational discourse. Once they see that their arguments are based on logical fallacies, they will be open to the wonderful news that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross.

For further documentation write
Faith Defenders
PO Box 7447
Orange, CA 92863
www.faithdefenders.com

Mohamed Sifaoui: "I Consider Islamism to Be Fascism"

Mohamed Sifaoui: "I Consider Islamism to Be Fascism"

Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2008, pp. 13-17

Mohamed Sifaoui was born on July 4, 1967, and spent most of his childhood in Algeria. He holds a master's degree in political science and studied theology for two years at the University of Algiers and for two additional years at Zeitouna University's Institute of Theology in Tunis. In 1994, he began work for the Algerian daily Le Soir and survived a February 11, 1996 bomb attack at Le Soir's headquarters at the Maison de la Presse. In 1999, the French government granted him political asylum after he received death threats both from Algerian Islamists and the military. In Paris, Sifaoui works at the French weekly Marianne. Between October 2002 and January 2003, he infiltrated an Al-Qaeda cell in France in order to research his book, Mes frères assassins: Comment j'ai infiltré une cellule d'Al-Qaïda. (My assassin brothers: How I infiltrated an Al-Qaeda cell).[1]

Sophie Fernandez Debellemanière, a former intern at Le Figaro and The Weekly Standard, interviewed Sifaoui in Paris on September 12, 2007, after meeting him at a 9-11 ceremony on the Champ de Mars.
In Islamism's Cross Hairs

Middle East Quarterly: Did you flee Algeria because of the terrorist attack on Le Soir?

Mohamed Sifaoui: No. Throughout the 1990s, I was determined to stay. I only left in 1999 when I was sentenced to one year in jail for insulting the head of state. I had criticized President Abdelaziz Bouteflika's reconciliation policy because I considered it unfair to grant amnesty to a terrorist without even judging him. The Algerian government talked about peace without ever recognizing there was a war. The terrorists suddenly got themselves released with the same rights as the victims' families. Bouteflika's behavior towards his people was criminal. They wanted to send me to jail at the same time they were releasing criminals.

MEQ: You stayed longer than most. Were people right to leave Algeria?

Sifaoui: The intellectuals and journalists who left Algeria when the murders started in 1992 were right to do so because the risk was real. Survival instinct is natural and legitimate. It would be indecent to judge them because fear is a legitimate human feeling. In this sense, I was the one being unreasonable by risking my life to stay.

MEQ: Why did you stay in Algeria?

Sifaoui: I didn't want to leave the country under pressure, because of the possibility of another terrorist attack. Nor do I believe that I was especially brave to stay. It is not a question of being brave or weak. The only thing that matters is the message and the values that you want to transmit. As a journalist, I felt that I had to stay. We never obtained press freedom in Algeria, but I wanted to struggle to get a small part of it. We made some progress, but then, Islamism took us backward. By staying, I wanted to show that I would not accept submission to Islamist censorship and its diktat.

MEQ: Are you still worried? After all, two bodyguards are supervising this interview.

Sifaoui: No, I am not worried. I have built sort of a shell around me. I keep calm, and I do not panic. Honestly, I prefer not to think about it; otherwise, I would worry too much.

MEQ: Are you proud today to have risked your life for your ideas?

Sifaoui: Yes, because I am lucky enough to be alive. It is a shame that those who died did not leave for safety. I stayed because I felt that I was able to accomplish this act of resistance. Each person resists in his or her own way; each does what he or she feels able to. Among the members of the World War II resistance, some hid other resisters; some hid Jewish families or helped them escape to Switzerland, and some failed only to denounce them. For me, at this time, my resistance to fundamentalism is based on a determination not to concede any ground to the Islamists but to keep on writing and to defy danger everyday.

MEQ: What was your reaction to Al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri's appeal on September 20, 2007, "to wipe sons of France and Spain" out of the Maghreb?[2]

Sifaoui: I've been expressing the same warnings about Islamist terrorism for years. Zawahiri's statement doesn't surprise me. Since the GSPC [Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat] pledged its allegiance to Al-Qaeda in September 2006, Algerian terrorists and Al-Qaeda leaders expressed their objective very clearly: Intensify terrorist attacks against the Algerian regime and its institutions, as well as against lay and democratic people, targeting Western and especially French citizens.

MEQ: Do you believe that Zawahiri was referring to the descendants of former colonists in Algeria by using the expression "sons of?" Or was this the result of too literal a translation of the Arabic?

Sifaoui: No! This has nothing to do with any literal translation! Zawahiri is referring to all French and Spanish citizens by saying "sons of." Al-Qaeda's targets are all the French and Spanish citizens in the Maghreb.

MEQ: Less than twenty-four hours after the release of Zawahiri's message, a terrorist attack in Lakhdaria in northern Algeria, fifty miles southeast of Algiers, wounded two French citizens, one Italian, and six Algerians.[3] Is this attack a sign that the European presence in the Maghreb is in jeopardy?

Sifaoui: I would not be so pessimistic, but such a quick reaction indicates how organized and coordinated Al-Qaeda and the GSPC are. It also shows the Algerian regime's incapacity to deal with terrorism.
An Islamist and Fascist Nexus?

MEQ: Would you use the term Islamo-fascism to describe this threat?

Sifaoui: I certainly am one of the first Muslims to consider Islamism to be fascism. This is not a subjective decision but rather a serious, academic argument. Fascism and Islamism are comparable in many aspects: Fascism, without evoking all its particularities, bears similarities to trends also present in Islamism. I am, of course, making a reference to their will to exterminate the Jews. On this point, the Islamists may go even further in their doctrine than the Nazis did, considering that the end of the world could only occur when there are no Jews left on earth. In the three monotheist religions, apocalypse, end of the world, and doomsday exist and are liturgical events invested with a high degree of spirituality. Hence, the Islamists interpret the end of the world in a very special way. Whereas it is written nowhere in the Qur'an, exegetes describe the end of the world as the day when even the trees and rocks will be able to talk and tell the Muslims: "Come here, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him." And this would go on, until there would not be any Jew left on earth. This ideology is pure fascism.

MEQ: Are there other similarities?

Sifaoui: The will to exterminate or do harm to homosexuals is another similarity between Nazism and Islamism. The Islamists, also, say that they are the best community in the world, a superior race thanks to their beliefs. They use political means to arrive at this erroneous exegesis. I do not fear to call it fascism. And there are many more similarities between fascism and Islamism.
Islamism vs. Moderate Islam

MEQ: Do you believe it is possible to criticize Islamism without being called a racist?

Sifaoui: Absolutely, I would say that one must criticize Islamism. When I am criticizing Nazism, I am not being anti-German.

MEQ: When did you feel for the first time that you had to criticize Islamism?

Sifaoui: I have always felt that it was a moral duty.

MEQ: Do you believe that moderate Islam exists?

Sifaoui: Of course, it does. If the majority of Muslims were not moderate, Islamists would have destroyed the Western world a long time ago. Despite its technological lead, its nuclear power, and all its armies, the Western world would never be able to face an Islamist world entirely convinced by the terrorist cause. One billion people supporting Al-Qaeda would reduce the rest of the world to ashes. Islam contains violent texts that need not be applicable today. Islam is a religion of moderation. I know because I studied theology for four years.

Perhaps 20 percent of Muslims on the planet must be totally reeducated. We have to fight them politically, ideologically, and also militarily. Western societies do not fight them well; whenever they try to do so, they end up strengthening them.

One proof that moderate Islam exists is the huge number of sympathy messages that I received from Muslim people when my investigative story on Al-Qaeda Salafist networks, J'ai infiltré une cellule islamiste, was broadcast on French television M6.
Iran

MEQ: Given the Islamists' vision of apocalypse, do you believe that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would fear reprisal should Iran attack Israel? Should Western analysts rely on Iran's rationality?

Sifaoui: Too many Western analysts look at any adversary through a Western lens. Western analysts believe that Al-Qaeda is as rational as the Basque separatist group ETA [Euskadi Ta Askatasuna] or the Irish Republican Army. My personal history, culture, and investigative journalism work allow me to understand what Westerners cannot see: Iran will attack Israel as soon as it can.

MEQ: Doesn't Iran take into account the eventuality of its own destruction?

Sifaoui: No, it does not. Martyrdom is exalted in Iran. Iranians view annihilation positively. The Islamists' main purpose is to create the conditions for the West to believe that chaos is possible. The argument that says that Iran will not attack Israel because of immediate and massive retaliation from Israel and the United States is absolutely wrong. The Islamists would welcome such retaliation in order to cement coalitions among Muslim peoples and to encourage riots in the Arab street. U.S. military action, or even its prospect, coincides with Islamists' interests. That is the reason why I was against the war in Iraq.

MEQ: Can you explain?

Sifaoui: Between October 2002 and January 2003, I spent four months infiltrating an Al-Qaeda terrorist cell in France. Two months before the launching of the Iraq war, when I was in the midst of the group, one of the Islamists said, "Now we are going to pray for George Bush to attack Iraq." I was surprised and acted as if I were stupid: "Really? Why do you want America to kill our brothers?" The most clever and elevated in Al-Qaeda's hierarchy, Amara Saïfi [the GSPC's emir in London] whispered to me, "All over the world, our brothers are now praying for George Bush to attack Iraq. War between the Muslim world and the Western world is bound to happen. Unfortunately, Muslims are too divided. Far too many of them do not pray regularly and neglect religion and jihad. In order to unify and mobilize all these people, we have to continue what we initiated on 9-11. We attacked America to make her retort everywhere in the Muslim world, in order to create a real war between Muslims and the West, and especially Israel."

MEQ: That's incredible.

Sifaoui: Another of the group added, "Once Iraq is at war, many of our brothers will go there to fight jihad. George Bush will have answered our prayers by suppressing our enemy Saddam Hussein and unifying the Muslims in jihad. Then as Westerners do not know how to fight attrition wars, we know that they will inevitably get stuck. We will wait until they leave in order to establish an Islamist state in Iraq. This war will be a pretext to launch terrorist attacks in Europe as well."

Unfortunately, you can see their theory is valid. They predicted exactly what is happening.

[1] Paris: Le Cherche-midi Editeur, 2003.
[2] Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Special Dispatch Series, no. 1721, Sept. 21, 2007; "Warden Message," Embassy of the United States of America, Algiers, Algeria, Sept. 24, 2007; Andrew Black, "Recasting Jihad in the Maghreb," Terrorism Monitor, Oct. 25, 2007.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP172107
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/analysts.php?authorid=341
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373742
[3] "Warden Message," Sept. 24, 2007.

Al-Qaeda Is Losing the War

Al-Qaeda Is Losing the War
By Alain Campiotti
Le Temps

Wednesday 07 November 2007

The military war launched by Osama bin Ladin has aroused a rejection response from local communities that see no way out of a bloodbath and have begun to distance themselves.

Rami Ayad was killed as an example. To frighten people. Now Gaza knows it. After the murder of this young Baptist bookseller on October 7, the city preferred to believe in the crime of a solo fanatic or mentally disturbed person. For several days now, Gazans know that Ayad was stabbed, then executed with a bullet to the head because a local radical group had condemned him to death. What group? No one says. The "Takfir" - those who grant themselves the right by fatwa to kill Muslims, the "hypocrites" (the Shiites) or, of course, the infidels? Al-Qaeda? My interlocutor, who knows, doesn't answer. But since Gaza has come to understand its significance, the Christian's murder has acted on the city like an electroshock. Sunday, a requiem mass will be said in the Roman Holy Family Church, and Hamas will come in force. The Palestinians - who have committed their own terror on the streets of Tel-Aviv - don't want to include in their ranks those radicals of global jihad who kill in Bali, Madrid, New York and Gaza, professing to do so for Palestine. Al-Qaeda has never been able to involve itself in this fight that Osama bin Ladin nonetheless describes as a priority.

And suddenly, within Islam, this Palestinian rejection is no longer an isolated phenomenon. In the Lebanese drama, the bloodiest episode was the terrible little war this summer in the Palestinian refugee camp Nahr al-Bared, north of Tripoli. The source of that confrontation in the country of manipulation is still not clear. On the one hand, Fatah al-Islam, a group of several hundred jihadists who came from North Africa, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and elsewhere, had taken over control of the camp. On the other, the fragile Lebanese army, which, from May to August, in very tough combat, killed or captured almost all the Islamist fighters. Nahr al-Bared is in the heart of North Lebanon, Sunni and conservative, which approved the army's bloody action. Fatah al-Islam referred to al-Qaeda. Its recruits came from Iraq or were in training to go there.

Iraq is precisely the third domain where something is tipping. For the West, the war over there has become routine. Five more American soldiers killed there Monday and Tuesday by roadside bombs and two dozen Iraqis executed in secret. But the news media are so used to a mechanical condemnation of the wicked occupation that a villain decided on, that they can't bring themselves to see what doesn't fit into that scenario, or can only see it as an effect of American military disinformation.

Having exhausted its arguments in 2003, and contrary to all evidence, the Bush administration presented the invasion of Iraq as a decisive confrontation with al-Qaeda. It was a lie, which has become true. The CIA itself abundantly demonstrated that the occupation was the most fertile recruitment medium for Osama bin Ladin's organization. And the Saudi, like his second Ayman al-Zawahiri, very quickly ratified George Bush: Iraq was the main battlefield. Now al-Qaeda is perhaps in the process of losing that battle, not because of the superiority of arms apposite it, but because of a rejection reaction coming from the fertile breeding medium itself. As in Gaza, as in Lebanon, and on a greater scale.

Of course, the Americans continue to lie. They would like the world to believe - and the Iraqis first of all - that the battle in Mesopotamia is being conducted against a foreign body, deadly to the country. In fact, the immense majority of al-Qaeda fighters there are Iraqis, reinforced by some hundreds of foreign volunteers pretty ready for martyrdom. If the organization initially forged by Abu Mussab al-Zarqaoui rallied to Osama bin Ladin, that's because of a community of vision with respect to ends and means. The fight was global, to eliminate Western influence and penetration of the territory of the Umma (the vast family of Islam), beginning with Iraq, by re-editing the glorious precedent of the liberation of Sovietized Afghanistan. The means were remorseless: including, as of the beginning of last year, murders of Shiites accused of collaboration with the enemy, because, as the majority, they essentially held governmental power.

The Sunni tribes, which should have been al-Qaeda's spawning grounds, had nothing to do with this global combat and in a year they had blood indigestion. The Americans helped them choose another route by inundating them with weapons and some hundreds of millions of dollars. The Sunnis still hate the occupier every bit as much, but the jihadist organization is now facing, apart from the Marines, an army of auxiliaries who obey their tribal chiefs.

That's a tactic the United States has used elsewhere - in Vietnam, for example - with results that were disastrous in the long run. But Iraq is different and the Cold War is over. Al-Qaeda does not really have a rear-country. The alliance Zarqaoui (killed in June 2006) forged had made Ramadi its capital. It lost it. All around Ramadi, broad swathes of the immense Al-Anbar Province elude al-Qaeda. Samarra and Fallujah are no longer dangerous places. American reinforcements and tribal militias are also pressuring jihadist groups farther east, and in Baghdad itself. Military losses are down, civilian losses also, it appears. Refugees have returned to the capital.

If this intelligence came from the Iraqi government and the American Embassy in their Green Zone only, it wouldn't be worth much. But the confirmation of these hangover effects comes from al-Qaeda itself. In a recording, an extract of which was broadcast by the Al-Jazeera station, Osama bin Ladin admitted that "mistakes" had been committed in Iraq. He appealed for resistance fighters to unite in the face of the common American enemy, which amounted to a confession of differences and fratricidal fights. That intervention provoked a tempest in the jihadist movement over the Internet. The Qatari station had broadcast an extract from the tape only, and militants accused it of manipulation and threatened the station. That was a reversal: up until now, al-Jazeera, very honorable and professional, had been more the target of the Americans who held it to be complicit with al-Qaeda and punished it for that.

Fissures, moreover, are appearing in the jihadist movement. The preacher Salman al-Odah, a former mentor to Osama bin Ladin, addressed an open letter to the emir in hiding, in which he reproaches him with drawing misfortune upon Muslims through the culture of martyrdom. Abdulaziz al-Sherif, a movement theoretician and al-Zawahiri intimate, publicly broke with the organization. Abdulaziz al-Ashaikh, the Saudi Grand Mufti (who, of course, is certainly not free to say whatever he wants) issued a fatwa in October prohibiting young Saudis from engaging in jihad: he does not want them to transform themselves into mobile bombs in order to achieve military and political objectives that are not their own.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, for his part, has just launched a call to arms in the Maghreb, against France and Spain, all the while praising a tiny Libyan sub-group's rallying to al-Qaeda. But these cries suddenly resemble those of a wounded animal. To the point that bin Ladin's fourth son, Omar, who dumped his father after having shared his life for four years in an Afghan camp, now prefers the comfort of the tabloids and his escapades. He considers his progenitor and his friends "crazies" who are leading Muslims into "disaster."

His father hides himself for the moment with the others Omar frequented in the mountains of the Afghan-Pakistan border, in the midst of the rebellious tribes, a convenient range for the dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf. Ten years ago, al-Qaeda was in the same caves, a little farther north, preparing its declaration of war against the Crusaders and the Jews, devising its plans for spectacular attacks that would bring the enemy out of its haunts so that it could bleed it as it bled and sickened the Russians during the 1980s. Ten years later, the enemy came, but it's al-Qaeda that bleeds. And in the tribal zones that protect it, the organization cannot easily construct the liberation of the Umma from the revolts of the Pashtuns and the Baluchis, poppy-growers and Taliban, undoubtedly still covertly financed by the Pakistani secret services.

So, other spectacular attacks and great horrors? Those that wounded Europe have had no other impact than to kill. No other government will react again as the United States did after 2001. Blind violence exhausts itself over time. In a way, that's what the participants in the requiem mass Sunday in the Holy Family Church, Christians and Muslims, will be saying. Hamas, which will be in the church, has renounced suicide attacks, and, in garroted Gaza, it holds the jihadists at a distance. For now.

Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher.

-------

Polygamy, terrorism, wife-stealing, and nuclear war

Polygamy, terrorism, wife-stealing, and nuclear war
By Will Offensicht
Published: October 4, 2007, 10:17 AM

All human societies are based on families, and families stand on how men and women relate to one another. All societies have laws and customs to regulate how couples mate and raise children. Traditional Islamic societies forbid any interaction between men and women who aren't married to each other. One reason Saudi women are not allowed to drive cars is that they might interact with an unrelated male; everybody knows where that could lead!
Modern Mating Dances

If men and women can't interact, how, then, do men and women decide whom to marry? They don't. In much of the Middle East and Asia, fathers decide whom their children marry; marrying for romantic love is regarded as an impractical Western notion. Comparing divorce rates around the world suggests that there's merit in the skeptical Asian view of romance-based marriage.

A father worries about economics when choosing his daughter's husband because there will be grandchildren. Having reduced his payroll by giving her to her husband, he doesn't want her back on his budget. The more desirable the daughter, the wealthier the husband he can attract and the more money he gets for selling--, oops, giving, his daughter in marriage to the lucky buyer--, oops, groom.

Some modern elements have crept into the tradition. Instead of just dealing with the parents, Japanese marriage brokers circulate resumes. I spent a couple of evenings around a Japanese kitchen table as the entire family reviewed 100 or so data packets about young men who might become the daughter's husband.

She filled out a form and sent in her evaluations. When the broker noted mutual interest, a "date" was arranged. The goal is to find the best of both worlds – parents filter resumes and young people find "safe love" by dating from pool of qualified candidates.

The mixture of Western ideas with traditional mating habits has become a staple of the film industry headquartered in Bombay, India. Many "Bollywood" plots center on a sincere, bumbling marriage broker struggling to marry off a handsome / ugly / rich / poor daughter. The crisis comes when somebody makes trouble just before the wedding. These stories reinforce the idea that the broker, the father, and the girl can count on the marriage being a done deal once the broker gets paid.

Polygamy

The assumption that marriages last "'til death us do part" doesn't work as well in Islamic societies where husbands may divorce any wife at any time by saying, "I divorce thee" three times. What happens then is up to the offended husband. He may send her home, he may let her stay, or he may put her out in the street with or without her children; it's up to him.

Jewish divorce law of 4,000 years ago was a much better deal for women:
"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deuteronomy 24:1-2 )

An ex-wife can't leave her husband's house to meet other men without his permission. She no longer belongs to her father so he can't help her. Even if a man could meet her, she couldn't marry because her ex-husband could reclaim her at any time so long as claiming her again didn't put him over the four-wife limit specified in the Koran.

Under Jewish law, her ex-husband had to give her a document which certified her eligibility to marry. He had to put her out of his house so that she could meet another husband, and he had no further claim on her ever again.

Islamic law limits a husband to a maximum of four wives at a time. Sheik Mohammad bin Laden, who founded the largest Islamic construction firm, is said to have had at least 54 children. To Muslims, wife's names aren't worth writing down so we don't know whether he had 20 or 22 wives, but he was meticulous about not being married to more than four at once. Osama bin Laden of 9-11 fame was the only son of Mohammad bin Laden's tenth wife.

Given that his construction firm grossed $5 billion per year, the Sheik could support any number of ex-wives, but that was up to him.

The American custom of a wealthy man dumping his spouse for a younger, more fertile "trophy wife" is similar to Islamic custom but the Islamic system is easier for men. When he replaced Ivana with Marla Marples, Donald Trump couldn't just say "I divorce thee," he needed lawyers and Ivana got some money. Not only that, American law meant that Mr. Trump had to be content with one trophy wife at a time, he couldn't have four at once as the Sheik could.

Prudent American men use prenuptial agreements to limit the future cost of dumping trophy wives. Islamic law gives a wife no legal rights, but a father can negotiate a prenuptial agreement committing the groom to support her and her children after divorce. Although her husband is free to divorce her at any time and she has no legal rights, his contract with her father -- being an agreement between men -- is enforceable. If a daughter is desirable enough, her father can give her some protection through a prenuptial agreement, but what happens if the prospective groom says, "I'll pay 10 camels for her without a prenup, but only 5 if you insist that I promise to feed her if I have to divorce her"?

Islamic polygamy creates situations where terrorism flourishes.

Polygamy and Terrorism

Polygamy puts awful strains on society. Let's assume that only 1 Muslim man in 10 can afford the statutory 4 wives and that other men can only afford one. In a town of 200 people, 100 men and 100 women, the 10 richest men take a total of 40 women by offering more money to the girl's fathers. That leaves 60 women for 90 non-rich men. If each rich man takes only 4 women out of the marriage pool, 30% of the men find no wife at all.

The actual situation is worse because super-rich men like the Sheik marry more than 4 women. He'll divorce surplus-wives as necessary for the bureacracy's sake, but he'll keep an ex-wife confined to the house so she'll be available for "creature comforts" in case of emergency. The super rich man takes 20 women; the 9 rich men take 36 so the richest 10 men take 56 wives. That leaves 44 women for the remaining 90 men; about half the men have no chance to marry.

People who find it hard to believe that there could be enough rich people to make that big a difference haven't thought about the oil money. The Saudi royal family, for example, has about 4,000 princes. There are reports that each prince gets a monthly allowance of $250,000. A cash flow of $3 million per year could support at least 20 wives. 20 wives for each of 4,000 princes is 80,000 women, leaving 76,000 men with no marriage prospects.

Saudi oil money paid for the construction work which gave Sheik Bin Laden his fortune and funded his harem. Saudi Arabia is the wealthiest country in the Middle East so the problem of men not being able to find wives is at its worst there. Sure enough, most of the 9-11 perpetrators were Saudi citizens.

Having too many unattached men is dangerous for any society. In the US, married men pay less for auto insurance than unmarried men because being linked to a woman stabilizes a man. Some historians claim that women drive civilization. As President Reagan said, "I happen to be one who believes that if it wasn't for women, us men would still be walking around in skin suits carrying clubs." The urge behind central heating, home appliances, and other civilized comforts is a man's drive to take care of his wife and make her comfortable enough that she likes being his wife. If a man owns his wife he doesn't need to act civilized and men who can't have a woman don't care about being civilized.

The New York Times documented the side effects of women shortages due to American polygamy in a recent article:

"Over the last six years, hundreds of teenage boys have been expelled or felt compelled to leave the polygamous settlement that straddles Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah. Disobedience is usually the reason given for expulsion, but former sect members and state legal officials say the exodus of males -- the expulsion of girls is rarer -- also remedies a huge imbalance in the marriage market. Members of the sect believe that to reach eternal salvation, men are supposed to have at least three wives."

The Times puts it well, "huge imbalance in the marriage market." Victims of American polygamy can leave home to find wives. Muslim men can't because neighboring countries have the same customs. Men with no attachment to society become terrorist cannon fodder; a successful suicide bomber is guaranteed 75 virgins in the afterlife. If the only way to get a woman is to commit suicide, so be it.

Any woman who's been pursued by an obsessed man she doesn't want understands how strong a man's drive for a woman can be.

Some women believe that if women are in short supply, their value goes up and they're treated better, but the genders are too far out of balance in the Middle East for this to work smoothly. As pointed out by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada,

"In some areas the gender imbalance is so marked that women are kidnapped and sold as wives."

If women are too valuable, the temptation to steal them becomes so great that they can't walk around without being "swept off their feet" and ripped off. That's another reason the Saudis don't let women drive cars -- carjacking easily turns into wifejacking.

Polygamy and Wife Stealing

Newspapers report that Palestinian suicide bombers who blow themselves up to kill Israelis come from the lower ranks. In the National Review October 8, 2007, p 36, an assistant to General Petraeus explained that instead of committing suicide to get women in the afterlife, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) leaders use force to get women here and now:

"AQI killed a sheik over his refusal to give daughters of his tribe to them in marriage, which created a revenge obligation (tha'r) on his people who attacked AQI."

AQI needs local cooperation to stay hidden from the Americans, but their drive for women is stronger than their desire to keep the locals happy. Most AQI leaders come from Saudi Arabia where establishment types not only get all the oil money, they get all the women, too. Killing a sheik and taking his women won't win Iraqi "hearts and minds," but since they can't afford the bride price, the only ways AQI can get women are murder or suicide. Murdering your prospective in-laws is a new twist on "shotgun wedding." As Willy Sutton put it, "You get further with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone."

Getting a discount on the bride price by murdering the bride's parents was such common practice in the Middle East that Jewish law regulates the practice:
"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

The Jews couldn't just work their will on a captive female, Moses wrote down rules:

First, she first shaves her head, cleans her nails, and gets rid of her clothes; that's the traditional way to get rid of body lice. Even today, shaving kids' hair is the standard way to cure head lice in certain American neighborhoods.

Second, she gets a "full month" to mourn her parents. This gives the man time to come down from his adrenaline high. I didn't win my wife by killing her parents, but I suspect that conquering a woman this way would be as exciting as having my team win the championship. Even in civilized parts of America, victorious sports fans can get rowdy, the Red Sox World Series comes to mind. Letting the man cool off for a month means she's less likely to get hurt when he "goes in unto her."

Third, Moses' law says that if the man does take her, she's no longer a slave, she's no longer property - the man cannot sell her. If the man doesn't want her any more, he has to set her free as required as noted above. Having sex with her promotes her from slave to wife.

Taking a woman gave her certain rights. If a man raped or seduced a woman, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 said he had to pay a fine and marry her. He also lost his right to divorce her.

Given the sexual forces involved, militant Islam will be a tougher opponent than communism ever was. By saying God did not exist, communists gave up religion as a tool to motivate people. Women were equal under communism, so they couldn't be given as rewards to the faithful. The only reward communists could offer was power.

Al Qaeda offers its followers power and religious satisfaction, of course, but it also offers the chance to find a wife or wives. If Al Qaeda wins in Iraq, they'll have oil money with which to reward their followers and they can award them wives by killing Iraqi men. What motivates men more, God's approval, money, power, or access to wives?

Gender imbalance fuels terrorism in the Middle East, and it could have more serious consequences.

Polygamy and Nuclear War

Gender imbalance might lead to nuclear war. Pakistan, a nuclear power, has an unstable government and a Muslim majority where polygamy and poverty flourish. If radical Islamics take power in Pakistan, they might start a war with India or China to get rid of unattached men who would otherwise cause them trouble.

Chinese gender imbalance could also lead to a nuclear exchange. An Economist book review noted an unexpected shortage of women:
"Some big numbers are so frightening that a habitual reaction is to ignore them, deny them or optimistically assume that they are already dwindling. One such figure was produced in 1990 by Amartya Sen, who later won the Nobel Prize for economics. More than 100m women, he claimed, were missing. Demographers have since quibbled with the arithmetic, but not with the underlying argument: that, in many countries, especially in Asia, there are fewer women than there should be, assuming normal patterns of birth and longevity."

The Wall Street Journal explained the shortage. "China's One-Child Mistake" WSJ Sept 17, 2007 p A17 says,

"Under normal circumstances, about 103 to 105 baby boys are born for every 100 baby girls. Shortly after the advent of the one-child policy, China began reporting biologically impossible disparities between boys and girls – and the imbalance has only continued to rise. Today China reports 123 baby boys for every 100 baby girls. … How will China cope with the sudden and very rapid emergence of tens of millions of essentially unmarriageable young men?"

Twenty-three out of 100 Chinese men can't find wives; that's close to the minimum estimate of the wife shortage due to Muslim polygamy. Chinese place immense value on sons because a) they carry on the family name and b) sons support their parents when the parents get old. Chinese trust their government to take care of them less than Americans trust their government to pay off on Social Security; they prefer sons to daughters strongly enough to murder enough girls to upset the gender balance, that's what "pro choice" means in China.

When their government got serious about enforcing the "one child" policy, Chinese used infanticide, murder, or abortion to get rid of girls in favor of boys. The Wall Street Journal counts "tens of millions of essentially unmarriageable young men," the Economist states that there are 100 million fewer Asian women than normal birth rates suggest that there should be. Either way, it's a problem.

What will the Chinese Government do with millions of surplus men?

In 1860, the Imperial Russian Government forced the Chinese to give up control of "Outer Manchuria." The British returned Hong Kong to China in 1997, but the Chinese are acutely aware that Russia has not given back Manchuria.

Russian life is so unpleasant that women are refusing to have babies at all and the Russian population is dropping. Very few Russians live in Outer Manchuria. Just south of the border, Chinese masses teem. What if Chinese men simply start walking across the border? What could the Russians do? General MacArthur, once the ranking US expert on war, said, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."

MacArthur's men suffered from "human wave" attacks in North Korea. The Chinese had one rifle for every 10 men. They'd line up and charge the American machine guns. When the guy carrying the rifle died, the next man picked it up and the line marched on. The Americans killed Chinese until they ran out of bullets, then they died to the last man.

MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese but Truman wouldn't let him. The President won the argument and fired MacArthur, but MacArthur had a point – how do you stop millions of Chinese without nukes? Would the Russians go nuclear to keep Outer Mongolia?

There's no way to replace millions of Asian girls who were killed or aborted 15 - 20 years ago. The WSJ suggests that the Chinese government abandon the "One Child" policy, but fear of famine is too deeply embedded in the Chinese psyche for them to let the population grow at its natural rate.

The Washington Post has reported how much trouble women had getting men to stop putting posters of women in locker rooms. Can anyone imagine rich, powerful Muslim men giving up their right to marry four wives at a time and to keep ex-wives around as spares? As the National Review article cited above put it, "You can imagine the tribes' reaction if the next thing they hear from us after Al-Qaeda is gone is, 'Hi, we're from the United States government and we're here to liberate your women.'"

Muslims send surplus men to Iraq to be killed by the American army, but that's only a short-term solution. Bin Laden contributed to the problem by having 5 wives. What if he wins and turns the entire world into a Muslim state? What will he do with all the surplus men when he doesn't have any enemies left to kill them off for him?
Will Offensicht is a staff writer for Scragged.com and an internationally published author by a different name. Read other Scragged.com articles on marriage, Islam, terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, polygamy and nuclear war

Terrorists, Marxists, Leftists and the Democrats

March 10, 2008
Terrorists, Marxists, Leftists and the Democrats
By Lance Fairchok
Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez is rattling his sword, deploying troops, and hoping to distract his increasingly agitated populace from the domestic policies that are dragging Venezuela deeper into the poverty and dysfunction of socialism. It is inevitable that as the economy declines, shortages spread, food become scarce, and crime skyrockets, a foreign enemy will be found to blame for the woes Chavez' absurd policies cause.

Chavez is angry because some Marxist terrorists he was fond of died in a Colombian raid. You see, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) provided money to the tune of 150,000 dollars to Chavez while he was imprisoned after a failed coup attempt in the early 90's. Their relationship is a cozy one, and now that he has power, he has become their benefactor, earning the affectionate code name of "angel," and funneling millions of oil dollars into their revolutionary coffers.

Colombia, a nation long suffering the depredations of this vicious Marxist narco-terrorist gang, struck out successfully at some of its leaders, harbored in neighboring Ecuador. They were able to kill Raul Reyes, the number two military commander of FARC, a man with the blood of an untold number of innocents on his hands.

Reyes was not a nice man. His resume includes the kidnapping hundreds of civilians, including tourists, participation in village massacres and terror bombings. Many of his victims were executed after they were kidnapped. Some were killed to prevent their rescue by security forces. Some where tortured. Reyes was sentenced in absentia for a long list of brutal crimes: the deaths of 13 policemen and 18 soldiers, the murder of a judge, a physician, three judicial officials, the ex-minister of Culture Consuelo Araújo, congressman Diego Turbay and his mother, catholic monsignor Isaías Duarte, Governor of Antioquia Guillermo Gaviria, former minister Gilberto Echeverri, and a dozen members of the Valle del Cauca Assembly. He was behind a nightclub bombing that killed 36 people in Bogotá. The list of victims that lay uncounted and unrequited in jungle graves will certainly be just as long. By every definition of justice and every concept of decency, Reyes should have been killed long ago.

The FARC is not a liberation movement, nor are they "Freedom Fighters." They are nothing more than smugglers, bandits and thieves whose modus operandi uses bombings, assassination, cocaine trafficking, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking and terror. FARC has its ideological roots in the Marxist revolutions that gave us the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Sendero Luminoso in Chile and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. To understand the meaning of the word evil, merely glance at the history of these groups.

With the help of Chavez, FARC is attempting to legitimize and mainstream itself, much as the genocidal PLO transformed, with the aid of useful idiots like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, from criminal terrorists to pseudo-statesmen. Democrats in Congress, succumbing to lobbying from FARC sympathizers and Marxist apologists, are stalling military aid and a free trade agreement. Undermining a close ally, in a despicable attempt to undermine President Bush and any success he might claim in South America. The Colombian people be damned, and the consequences, well, when are they ever a concern? The long view is an anathema to the left.

Chavez, Evo Morales of Bolivia and Ecuador's Rafael Correa demand the UN sanction Colombia for attacking its mortal enemy, calling it "fascist" and "criminal." Chavez described the raid as "cowardly murder, all of it coldly calculated." United by their populist Marxist ideology, and having made the pilgrimage to Havana to receive the blessing of Castro, all three leaders provide material support to the terrorists of FARC, actively undermining the safety and security of the Democratic nation of Colombia who is a major trading partner of all three.

The Venezuelan government has funneled support to radical groups in Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina. A sizable weapons shipment from Venezuela was recently uncovered in Veracruz, likely en route to leftist Mexican guerrillas. South America's axis of evil seeks out the like minded, reaching out to Syria and Iran, and letting Hezbollah operate freely in their countries. Flush with renewed ideological vigor, Venezuelan oil revenues and the drug activity Chavez coordinates the new Socialist hegemony will likely plunge South America into decades of violence and upheaval.

Chavez has purchased 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles from Russia, the modernized AK-103 as well as the license to produce the rifle and its ammunition in Venezuela. It will only be a matter of months before terrorists, rebels and drug gangs all over the region have the new fully automatic Kalashnikovs or Venezuelan surplus weapons. Soon after will come explosives and rocket propelled grenades.

A member of the cult of Che Guevara, Hugo Chávez' revolutionary ideology will inevitably spread from the barrel of a gun, and before he topples, the destruction and misery he causes will condemn much of South America to economic and social ruin. The American left, blind as always to the horrors visited upon the world by this misbegotten ideology, will enable and support the death of not one, but several democracies.

Found on a laptop in the terrorist camp and released by Colombian security services, a series of letters between FARC hierarchies confirms the substantial support of FARC by Hugo Chavez. A passage from one letter is particularly troubling:

"The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support "Plan Colombia" nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement). Here we responded that we are interested in relations with all governments in equality of conditions and that in the case of the US it is required a public pronouncement expressing their interest in talking with the FARC given their eternal war against us." Raul Reyes, FARC Terrorist Commander


Some very foolish and self-important persons feel they can represent themselves as emissaries of a new US administration to the despots and terrorist groups in South America. They may or may not have been speaking with Obama's blessing. That they talked to FARC at all, and it is not loudly condemned, is chilling. The US has had several congressional delegations visit the region recently. Who was on them? The arrogance and stupidity of so undermining our elected government boggles the mind. Whether it is visiting terror states with American blood on their hands or treating with murderers who currently hold American hostages, it is the sheerest folly and must be denounced and brought into the light of day.

Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe, is a determined and capable leader. He has done much to rebuild his war torn nation. His approval rating is an unheard of 80%. He has taken the countryside from guerillas and drug traffickers; the murder rate is less than half that of a decade ago, kidnapping is becoming rare and brutal thugs, from both sides of the political spectrum are brought to justice. He has demobilized 30,000 militia members. The economy is booming. FARC is loosing ground, attacked by police, citizens outraged by their cruelty and a reformed and capable military. Their safe havens are no longer safe. Mr. Uribe is a defender of freedom and democracy that deserves our profound respect, our support and most of all, our loyalty.

Facing imminent defeat, the Marxist killers are using other tactics, the tactics of deceit and disinformation. They are tapping into the gullible left in the United States to influence policy. Using their own words to charm the vain and muddled leadership of the Democrats and appealing to their various ideologies, FARC has succeeded in straining US-Colombian relations and undermining US support for the Colombian Free Trade agreement and military aid. Singing in harmony with the activists of the lefts largest causes such as unions, the MoveOn.Org/Clinton/Soros alliance and everyone else from enviro-fanatics, the NAACP, and Code Pink, they have played Pelosi's party for the fools that they are.

Colombia will survive. They have been born of the fiery crucible of South American nationhood, uniting as few nations do behind a capable and enlightened leader, a leader that does not promise utopia, but actual prosperity and security. They get it.

If we let the Democrats undermine our alliance with Colombia to appease the far left, no international agreement is safe. Foreign policy becomes just another political tool and our alliances merely matters of political convenience. If we abandon Colombia, as we abandoned Vietnam, we simply will not be trusted. But then, if you believe Hugo Chavez is good for Venezuela you should not be trusted with running a boy scout troop. If you think talking to FARC will get hostages released and atrocities stopped, you are a fool.

But What Can I Do About the Crisis Facing Israel and the Jewish People?

March 09, 2008
But What Can I Do About the Crisis Facing Israel and the Jewish People?
By Rachel Neuwirth
More and more people have been saying to me, "I realize that Jews are facing a major crisis in Israel, here in America, in Europe, and everywhere in the world. But what can I do about it? I am just one person. Vast forces are threatening Israel. Can I stop anti-Israelism and anti-Judaism on my own? I feel helpless in the face of the vast forces that are arrayed against us."

These are natural and normal human feelings. I have felt them at times myself. The confluence of international forces that has gathered against the Jewish people and faith, including the spiritual and intellectual fifth column amongst us, is indeed a formidable adversary. Nevertheless, there are things we can do if we are willing to work together to protect our rights and stand up to the massive defamation campaign waged against us.

One very important thing that all of us can do is to counter the endless lies and distortions of Israel's history and character that appear in the press, mass media, on the Internet, and even in scholarly journals. These distortions and outright falsehoods are a major reason why Israel is in such deep trouble, and in danger of "going under." Because the entire world has been led to believe an inaccurate, grossly distorted "narrative" of the conflict, the government of Israel feels it has no choice but to make concessions to the demands of its enemies, in order to appease world opinion. But these concessions imperil Israel's existence.

Each of us can help to correct this appalling situation by acting immediately, whenever we encounter such a distortion in the press or mass media, to correct it with a letter to the editor or news manager. We can also actively monitor the mass media on the Internet in order to locate as many distortions as we can and correct them. Further, we can speak up to counter distortions in public lectures and meetings about the Arab-Israel conflict, and even in private conversations. All of this requires work and time, but it really does help. Each of us should devote as much time and energy to these tasks as we possibly can.

But in order to counter the endless flow of lies and distortions about Israel, we must first learn what the true facts of Israel's history are. Before we can answer the chorus of unfair criticisms leveled against Israel and her supporters in the United States and elsewhere, we must first educate ourselves.

What are the facts about the conflict over "Palestine" that Arab and other anti-Israel propagandists have distorted, misrepresented and covered up? The following are some, although by no means all, of the most important ones:

The Israelis are not colonialists or alien "settlers" in the Land of Israel with no past connection or relationship to the country; on the contrary, we Jews have lived in Israel for at least 3,200 years if not longer. This is far longer than most peoples have lived in their present national homelands. Our two glorious temples, wonders of the ancient world, were there for a thousand years. King David's kingdom endured for more than four hundred years; later, there was the independent Jewish state of the Maccabees. Jews had lived in the Land of Israel in large numbers for at least 1,800 years before the Arabs conquered it in 635 C.E. Moreover, while hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from their land or put to death in it by foreign conquerors, there have been at least some Jews living there almost continuously for 3,200 years.

There has never been a distinctive "Palestinian" Arab people or an Arab "Palestine" state or nation; while it is true that some Arabs have lived in the Land of Israel for many centuries, they have never been ethnically or culturally distinct or different from the Arabs who live in other lands, including the original Arab homeland, the Arabian Peninsula. The Jews, however, are a people who originated in the Land of Israel and never had any other national homeland.

During over a thousand years of Muslim rule, "Palestine" was rarely the name even of an administrative district, let alone a nation. Arabs referred to the entire land that now comprises Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the "occupied territories" as "al-Shams" (Syria), which they regarded as one country.

While the Land of Israel, also called "Palestine" by Romans and Europeans, was densely populated in ancient times, its population steadily declined during over 1,000 years of Muslim rule. In the nineteenth century, Israel/Palestine was very thinly settled. There was very little agriculture, and extensive abandoned and uninhabited "waste" lands. Most of the population, such as it was, lived in dire poverty. Brigandage was such an established and accepted way of life that it was impossible to travel on the roads without the payment of large bribes to the leading men of each village along the way. The roads themselves were no more than unpaved footpaths. Villages fought wars with each other. Nomadic Bedouin tribes frequently raided villages and even larger towns. The inhabitants of the few larger towns (there were no real cities) had to cower behind thick walls and locked gates every night for security.

The Arab population of Israel/Palestine only began to grow in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, at the same time that Jews began to resettle the land. Jewish immigrants brought with them modernized agriculture, including the growing of oranges, which had been previously unknown; a market for Arab agricultural goods; employment at Jewish farms and factories; modern hospitals and medicine that saved thousands of Arab lives; the draining of swamps that had caused thousands of deaths from malaria and other insect-born diseases; and vastly expanded Arab education funded by Jewish taxes.

The Arab population of Palestine has grown extensively, from under 500,000 in 1891 to over 3,600,000 today, partly because of increased life expectancy brought about by the economic and scientific progress introduced by Jewish immigrants/settlers, but also in part because of extensive immigration to Palestine from many Arab countries.

As a result, many of the Arabs who call themselves, or who are called by other Arabs "Palestinians," have ancestors who originated in Egypt, Syria, what are now Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and other Arab countries. These Arab countries ought rightfully to give these "Palestinians" citizenship, but refuse to do so.

The Arabs, including and especially the Palestinian Arabs, have been the aggressors throughout the nearly 100 years of the Arab-Israel conflict. This "one long war" began with the communal violence that convulsed Palestine between 1920 and 1948, even before Israel was founded.

Palestinian and other Arabs organized and carried out massive pogroms against the Jews of Palestine in 1920, 1921 and 1929, waged a sustained terrorist campaign against them from 1936 through 1939, and a full-scale jihad against them in 1947-48. Thousands of Palestinian terrorist/guerillas, the regular armies of six Arab states, and "volunteers" from throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds all participated in this aggressive war. Before the 1947-48 Arab attack against the Palestinian/Israeli Jews there had been few if any displaced Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs were not innocent bystanders in the war that made them refugees. They initiated the war in which some, although not all, of them fled from parts of Israel in 1948. They killed over two thousand Jews in that war. The six invading Arab states killed over 4,300 more Jews.

The Israelis defended themselves as best they could against these unprovoked attacks. But they did not expel the Palestinian Arabs. Many Arab leaders as well as ordinary Palestinian Arabs have admitted that Arab leaders urged the Arabs living in Palestine to flee, promising them that Arab armies would soon defeat the Jews and allow them to return to their homes. Despite this bad advice, many Palestinian Arabs never left Israel, and became Israeli citizens, with full rights of citizenship. Today there are over one million Arab citizens and residents of Israel -- more than there were in 1947, before Israel was established.

Following this first major Arab-Israel war, the Arab states induced the United Nations to keep the Palestinian Arabs refugees and their descendants in "refugee camps" (actually segregated towns) for generations. All of the Arab states except Jordan denied the Palestinian Arabs citizenship and equal rights. Arab governments and the refugee camp administrations taught the Palestinians that it was their Arab duty to wage war against Israel in order to gain back the homes in what is now Israel where (some) of their ancestors had lived before 1948. This segregation and indoctrination of the Palestinian refugees, as well as their descendants to the third, fourth and all later generations, is the true origin of Palestinian terrorism, not Israeli "oppression" or "occupation."

Also following the Arab-Israel war of 1947-49, the Arab nations refused to sign peace treaties with Israel, sponsored Palestinian Arab terrorist raids into Israel in which hundreds of Israelis were killed, and waged war by economic boycott and propaganda as well. Last but not least, Egypt waged war by blockading Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal and in the Gulf of Aqaba (also called the Gulf of Eilat by Israelis). These acts of war severely damaged the Israeli economy in addition to causing widespread loss of life and injury to Israel's citizens.

Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks on, and raids into, Israel have been continuous since 1949. Whatever reprisal raids and counterterrorist operations Israel has conducted over these years against the Palestinian terrorists have been reluctant responses to aggression against Israeli civilians and soldiers--not deliberate attacks on Arab civilians, as Arab spokesman and much of the press in the West have misrepresented them.

Israel only "occupied" the so-called "occupied territories" in 1967 as a necessary act of self-defense, in response to a whole series of acts of aggression by the Arab world: two and a half years of Palestinian Arab terrorist raids sponsored by Syria; decades of Syrian shelling of Israeli border villages from artillery positions on the Golan Heights, the forced removal of United Nations peacekeepers from the Sinai by Egypt's President Nasser: a reinstatement of the Egyptian blockade of Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba: the mobilization of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies along Israel's three borders, and public declarations of war on Israel by Egypt's Nasser, the government of Syria and other Arab regimes. Israel "occupied" these territories only as a means of forestalling the publicly proclaimed, imminent Arab invasion, and to stop the Jordanian shelling of Israeli Jerusalem. This Jordanian barrage had killed 17 Israelis and wounded many more before Israel moved to occupy the "West Bank," (more accurately known as Judea and Samaria).

Israel has now withdrawn from 90% of the territories that it occupied in 1967, including all of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza region, large parts of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank"), and part of the Golan Heights. But these very substantial concessions have failed to persuade the Arab world to make peace with Israel.

All of the other Arab-Israeli wars were also initiated or heavily provoked by Arab states, usually working in tandem with the Palestinian Arab terrorist groups whom they sponsored. Egypt forced a war with Israel in 1956 by sponsoring Palestinian terrorist raids deep into Israeli territory for more than two years, and by blockading Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched an unprovoked surprise attack on Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish year, Yom Kippur (the timing was surely no coincidence). Israel invaded Lebanon in 1981 only after years of Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks originating in that country; Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon in 2000, but was forced in 2006 to deal with renewed terrorist attacks into its territory from Lebanon -this time, by a Lebanese, not a Palestinian, terrorist organization, Hezbollah. Israel quickly withdrew from Lebanon again following a ceasefire.

Jewish settlements established since 1967 outside the pre-Six Day War ceasefire lines are not "illegal." The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, issued in 1922 with the unanimous support of the League member states and with the additional support of the United States (although it was not a member of the League), requires that the administration of Palestine "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency . . . close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes" (article 6). The International Court of Justice has ruled in a similar case (that of Southwest Africa) that the Mandate documents issued by the League of Nations remain international law, even though the League itself was disbanded in 1946, and its responsibilities transferred to the United Nations. The United Nations Charter (Article 80) states that the "rights of peoples" in the League of Nations Mandate documents remain in force, as well as the documents themselves.

The Israel "occupation" of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is also legal according to international law, for three reasons: 1) Israel only occupied these territories in a defensive war; 2) her enemies continue to wage an aggressive war of terror from these territories, requiring a continued Israel military presence in them for self-defense. 3) Israel has a better title to these territories than any other nation, since the League of Nations Mandate document for Palestine, which has never been rescinded, specifies that the administration of these territories "shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home," The British Mandatory power ceased when the State of Israel was born but the rights of the Jewish people to the land remain intact, since they are a "sacred trust of civilization," as defined by the Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 22. These permanent rights are enshrined in the Trusteeship Chapter of the UN Charter [Chapter XII, Art. 80]

There are many, many additional salient facts about the conflict that supporters of Israel should learn in order to combat the campaign of defamation and slander waged against her throughout the world. Here we have had space only to summarize a few of the most important points. But learning even these few important facts makes a useful start for those who wish to be activists in correcting the lies and distortions about Israel's history and character. They make important "talking points" for responding to these lies and distortions, whether in the mass media, on the Internet, at lectures and public meetings, or in private conversations.

We need to remember Benjamin Franklin's observation during the American Revolution: "if we don't hang together, then most assuredly we shall hang separately." We Americans, whether Jewish, Christian and even Muslim, cannot separate our own freedom and security from that of Israel.


John Landau contributed to this article.


Documentation: For the history of the Palestinian refugee problem, as well as good general introductions to the history of the Arab-Israel dispute, see Big Lies: Demolishing The Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel by David Meir-Levi, Introduction by David Horowitz, and Arab and Jewish Refugees - The Contrast, by Eli E. Hertz For see Carta's Historical Atlas of Israel, the Jewish History Atlas, by Martin Gilbert, present the long and continuous history of the Jewish habitation of Israel/Palestine in clear, easy-to-follow language with visual aids. Also very helpful for this purpose is " Israel 's Story in Maps," produced by www.Israelinsider.com. For the condition of Palestine under Islamic rule before Jewish resettlement, see Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, also Arnold Blumberg, Zion Before Zionism 1838-1880, and Saul S. Friedman, Land of Dust: Palestine at the Turn of the Century, Ms. Peters' book also contains documentation of the extensive Arab immigration to Palestine that went on at the same time as the Jewish resettlement. For the history of the Arab-Israel wars and Arab terrorism in Palestine, the best source is Neaten Lorch, One Long War: Arab versus Jew Since 1920, also excellent on this subject is Martin Gilbert, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps. Another book by Netanel Lorch, The Edge of the Sword: Israel's War of Independence 1947-49, gives the best account of the Palestinian and other Arab aggression in which the Palestinian Arab refugee "exodus" occurred. Also useful guides to these events are Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, O Jerusalem; and Jon and David Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill, also published also under the alternative title A Clash of Destinies. For the legality of the Israeli settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and the legality of the Israeli administration of these areas, see Eli E. Hertz, "This land is My Land: Mandate for Palestine; The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights; and Eugene V. Rostow, "Resolved: are the Settlements Legal?"

Professor Meir-Levi's pamphlet Big Lies can be downloaded from the www.frontpage.com web site, and can also be ordered in "hard copy" from that site. All of Mr. Eli E. Hertz's articles can all be downloaded from his www.mythsandfacts.org web site. Eugene V. Rostow's article can be found on the http://middleeastfacts.org web site and elsewhere on the web; it was originally published in the Oct. 21, 1991 issue of The New Republic. " Israel 's Story in Maps," is available for downloading on the www.Israelinsider.com web site, and can also be ordered on DVD. Carta's Historical Atlas of Israel can be ordered from eisenbrauns.com, TomFolio.com, Biblio-com, and Israel-catalog.com. Martin Gilbert's Jewish History Atlas and The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps can be ordered from Amazon.com. Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial can be ordered from http://shop.wnd.com/store, www.eretzyisroel.org, amazon.com, and other sites on the web. Professor Blumberg's Zion Before Zionism 1838-1880 can be ordered from amazon.com and antiqbook.com. Professor Friedman's Land of Dust can be obtained from www.Nowandtherebooks.com. Netanel Lorch's books One Long War and The Edge of the Sword can be ordered from Amazon.com and antiqbook.com. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre's O Jerusalem are available through amazon.com and centuryone.com. Jon and David Kimche's Both Sides of the Hill can be ordered through amazon.com, AmericanaExchange.com, BookNet.com, and alibris.com.

Pro-Israel activists wishing to counter the constant misrepresentations of Israel's history and actions should obtain, and read, as many of these or similar books and articles as possible.