THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step over the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all their treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Whenever Muslims charge that the war on terror is really a war against Islam, Americans hasten to assure them they are wrong. Yet as Dinesh D'Souza argues in this powerful and timely polemic, there really is a war against Islam. Only this war is not being waged by Christian conservatives bent on a moral crusade to impose democracy abroad, but by the American cultural left, which for years has been vigorously exporting its domestic war against religion and traditional morality to the rest of the world.

D'Souza contends that the cultural left is responsible for 9/11 in two ways: by fostering a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies--especially traditional and religious ones--and by promoting, at home and abroad, an anti-American attitude that blames America for all the problems of the world.

Islamic anti-Americanism is not merely a reaction to U.S. foreign policy but is also rooted in a revulsion against what Muslims perceive to be the atheism and moral depravity of American popular culture. Muslims and other traditional people around the world allege that secular American values are being imposed on their societies and these values undermine religous belief, weakon the traditional family, and corrupt the innocense of children. But it is not "America" that is doing this to them, it is the American cultural left. What traditional societies consider repulsive and immoral, the cultuural left considers progressive and liberating.

Taking issue with those on the right who speak of a "clash of civilizations," D'Souza argues that the war on terror is really a war for the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims--and traditional peoples everywhere. The only way to win the struggle with radical Islam is to convince traditional Muslims that America is on their side.

We are accustomed to thinking of the war on terror and the culture war as two distinct separate struggles. D'Souza shows that they are really one and the same. Conservatives must recognize that the left is now allied with the Islamic radicals in a combined effort to defeat Bush's war on terror. A whole new strategy is therefore needed to fight both wars. "In order to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad," D'Souza writes, "we must defeat the enemy at home."

Conservatives must recognize that the left is now allied with the Islamic radicals in a combined effort to defeat Bush's war on terror.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
Sayyid Qutb
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sayyid Qutb

Sayyid Qutb ...; 9 October 1906[1] - 29 August 1966) was an Egyptian author, Islamist, and the leading intellectual of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 60s. He is best known in the Muslim world for his work on the social and political role of Islamic fundamentalism, particularly in his books Social Justice and Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones). His extensive Quranic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an (In the shades of the Qur'an) has contributed significantly to modern perceptions of Islamic concepts such as jihad, jahiliyyah, and ummah. He is best known in the West as "the man whose ideas would shape Al Qaeda." [2] Alternative spellings of his first and last names include Saïd, Syed, Koteb (rather common), Qutub, Kotb, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb#Works
Whether he esposed dictatorship, or later rule by Sharia law with essentially no government at all, defensive jihad or later offensive jihad, Sayyid Qutb's mature political views always centered on Islam - Islam as a complete system of morality, justice and governance, whose Sharia laws and principles should be the sole basis of governance and everything else in life. In an earlier work [18], Qutb described military jihad as defensive, Islam's campaign to protect itself. [19] On the issue of Islamic governance, Qutb differed with many modernist and reformist Muslims who claimed democracy was Islamic because the Quranic institution of Shura supported elections and democracy. Qutb pointed out that the Shura chapter of the Qur'an was revealed during the Mekkan period, and therefore, it does not deal with the problem of government. [20] It makes no reference to elections and calls only for the ruler to consult some of the ruled, as a particular case of the general rule of Shura, [21] and argued a `just dictatorship` would be more Islamic. [22] Qutb also opposed the then popular ideology of Arab nationalism, having become disillusioned with the 1952 Nasser Revolution and having been exposed to the regime's practices of arbitrary arrest, torture, and deadly violence during his imprisonment.

[edit] Jahiliyyah vs. freedom
This exposure to abuse of power undoubtedly contributed to the ideas in his famous prison-written Islamic manifesto Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq where he advocated a political system the opposite of dictatorship. There Qutb argued:

The Muslim world had ceased to be and reverted to pre-Islamic ignorance known as jahiliyyah, because of the lack of sharia law. All non-Islamic states are thus illegitimate, including that of his native land Egypt

Rather than rule by a pious few, (or democratic representation [23]), Muslims should resist any system where men are in "servitude to other men" -- i.e. obey other men -- as un-Islamic and a violation of God's sovereignty (Hakamiyya) over all of creation. A truly Islamic polity would not even have theocratic rulers since Muslims would need neither judges nor police to obey divine law [24] [25]

The way to bring about this freedom was for a revolutionary vanguard [26] to fight jahiliyyah with a two-fold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihaad."

The vanguard movement would grow until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world. Islamically-correct Jihaad now being interpreted by Qutb as offensive, no longer "narrowly" defensive as those "defeated by the attacks of the treacherous Orientalists!" believe. [27]

Qutb emphasized this struggle would be anything but easy. True Islam would transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim. True Muslims could look forward to lives of "poverty, difficulty, frustration, torment and sacrifice." Jahili erzatz-Muslims, Jews and Westerners would all fight and conspire against Islam and the elimination of jahiliyyah.

"The Head of the Snake"
...
The general charge that fundamentalists make against despots past and present is that in exchange for U.S. military and political support for their regime, they open up their countries to the polluting influences of American social institutions and popular culture. Fundamentalists charge that in every case, the United States seeks to strengthen those forces that are operating in the Muslim world to secularize the society, destroy the family, corrupt the children, and degrade the culture.

Insurgents form political front to plan for US pullout
Leaders of Iraqi groups say attacks will go on until Americans leave

Seumas Milne in Damascus
Thursday July 19, 2007
The Guardian


Seven of the most important Sunni-led insurgent organisations fighting the US occupation in Iraq have agreed to form a public political alliance with the aim of preparing for negotiations in advance of an American withdrawal, their leaders have told the Guardian.

In their first interview with the western media since the US-British invasion of 2003, leaders of three of the insurgent groups - responsible for thousands of attacks against US and Iraqi armed forces and police - said they would continue their armed resistance until all foreign troops were withdrawn from Iraq, and denounced al-Qaida for sectarian killings and suicide bombings against civilians.

Speaking in Damascus, the spokesmen for the three groups - the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Ansar al-Sunna and Iraqi Hamas - said they planned to hold a congress to launch a united front and appealed to Arab governments, other governments and the UN to help them establish a permanent political presence outside Iraq.

Abu Ahmad, spokesman for Iraqi Hamas said: "Peaceful resistance will not end the occupation. The US made clear it intended to stay for many decades. Now it is a common view in the resistance that they will start to withdraw within a year. "

The move represents a dramatic change of strategy for the mainstream Iraqi insurgency, whose leadership has remained shadowy and has largely restricted communication with the world to brief statements on the internet and Arabic media.

The last three months have been the bloodiest for US forces, with 331 deaths and 2,029 wounded, as the 28,000-strong "surge" in troop numbers exposes them to more attacks.

Leaders of the three groups, who did not use their real names in the interview, said the new front, which brings together the main Sunni-based armed organisations except al-Qaida and the Ba'athists, had agreed the main planks of a joint political programme, including a commitment to free Iraq from foreign troops, rejection of cooperation with parties involved in political institutions set up under the occupation and a declaration that decisions and agreements made by the US occupation and Iraqi government are null and void.

The aim of the alliance - which includes a range of Islamist and nationalist-leaning groups and is planned to be called the Political Office for the Iraqi Resistance - is to link up with other anti-occupation groups in Iraq to negotiate with the Americans in anticipation of an early US withdrawal. The programme envisages a temporary technocratic government to run the country during a transition period until free elections can be held.

The insurgent groups deny support from any foreign government, including Syria, but claim they have been offered and rejected funding and arms from Iran. They say they have been under pressure from Saudi Arabia and Turkey to unite. "We are the only resistance movement in modern history which has received no help or support from any other country," Abdallah Suleiman Omary, head of the political department of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, told the Guardian. "The reason is we are fighting America."

All three Sunni-based resistance leaders say they are acutely aware of the threat posed by sectarian division to the future of Iraq and emphasised the importance of working with Shia groups - but rejected any link with the Shia militia and parties because of their participation in the political institutions set up by the Americans and their role in sectarian killings.

Abd al-Rahman al-Zubeidy, political spokesman of Ansar al-Sunna, a salafist (purist Islamic) group with a particularly violent reputation in Iraq, said his organisation had split over relations with al-Qaida, whose members were mostly Iraqi, but its leaders largely foreigners.

"Resistance isn't just about killing Americans without aims or goals. Our people have come to hate al-Qaida, which gives the impression to the outside world that the resistance in Iraq are terrorists. We are against indiscriminate killing, fighting should be concentrated only on the enemy," he said. He added: "A great gap has opened up between Sunni and Shia under the occupation and al-Qaida has contributed to that."

Wayne White, of Washington's Middle East Institute and a former expert adviser to the Iraq Study Group, said it was unclear, given the diversity within the Sunni Arab insurgency, what influence the new grouping would have on the ground.

He added: "This does reveal that despite the widening cooperation on the part of some Sunni Arab insurgent groups with US forces against al-Qaida in recent months, such cooperation could prove very shortlived if the US does not make clear that it has a credible exit strategy.

"With the very real potential for a more full-blown civil war breaking out in the wake of a substantial reduction of the US military presence in Iraq, Shia and Kurds appreciate that the increased ability of Sunni Arabs to organise politically and assemble in larger armed formations as a result of such cooperation could confront them with a considerably more formidable challenge as time goes on."

Iraq hasn't even begunLooking back over a quarter of a century of chronicling current affairs, I cannot recall a more comprehensive and avoidable man-made disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_thought_and_legacy_of_Khomeini
Political thought and legacy of Khomeini
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ayatollah Khomeini
Further information: Ruhollah Khomeini
The Political thought and legacy of Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mustafavi Khomeini refers to the religious and political ideas and legacy of that leader of the Iranian Revolution, one of the major revolutions of the 20th century. Under his leadership, Iran replaced its millennia-old monarchy with theocracy, currently the only such ruling system in the world. Khomeini brought about a major paradigm shift in Shia religion, declaring Islamic jurists the true holders of political, not just religious, authority; who are owed obediance as "an expression of obedience to God," [1] and whose rule has "precedence over all secondary ordinances [in Islam] such as prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage." [2]
Outside of Iran Khomeini's influence has been less, though it has been felt among the large Shia populations of Iraq and Lebanon.

http://al-islam.org/al-tawhid/default.asp?url=greater_jihad.htm
Another Warning
Your future is dark: numerous enemies are surrounding you on every side and from all strata; dangerous fiendish plans are ready to be enacted which will destroy you and the seminaries. The colonialists dream about what they will do with you, they have deep dreams about what they will do with Islam and the Muslims. With the pretence of Islam, they have drawn up dangerous plans for you. Only in the shade of refinement, preparation, and the proper arrangement and order will you be able to push away these corruptions and difficulties, and frustrate the plans of the colonialists.

According to Islam, Judaism and Christianity are incomplete but genuine revelations. As monotheists, Jews and Christians have historically been entitled to Muslim respect and every protection. In every Islamic empire, Jews and Christians were permitted to practice their religion and in no Muslim regime has it ever been considered legitimate to kill them. By contrast, polytheists and atheists have always been anathema to Islam. The Koran says: "Fight the pagans altogether as they fight you altogether," and, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them." These passages, which bin Laden frequently quotes, do not refer to Christians, because Christians are not considered pagans or idiolaters. Rather, they refer to those, like the bedouins of ancient Arabia, who worship many gods or no gods. Muslims are commanded to fight these unbelievers, especially when they threaten the House of Islam.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

On Saturday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want."