Back from Afghanistan

Hello All!!

Its been so long since I've been home. I spent the last two years doing humanitarian work along the border of Afghanistan and its been amazingly eye opening. Posts will come shortly. Still trying to get my affairs in order. Coming back from the dead requires quite a bit of paperwork.

A War On Our Shores

America has become the frontline. We did not invade a country. We did not provoke such an attack. On 9/11/2001 an enemy, offended by our lifestyle, commited an act of war. We are currently at war with not only those responsible but against all who would commit murder as a legitamate military tactic.

Let us be frank. There is really only one group of people that have embraced this tactic as a weapon. Muslims. Sanctioned by their Koran and the example of their prophet they commit the most horrible crimes on the face of the earth. Perhaps one may suggest that not all Muslims support such horrific crimes against humanity. Then let them speak!! Five years have passed and only a handfuls of Muslims have stood up to denounce purposely crashing civilian passenger planes into civilian offices, homes, and daycare facilities.

Islam is refusing to police itself. If a Nazi nutcase wraps himself in the Christian religion and then blows up a civilian building it is immediatly denounced and condemned by every Christian church in the world. Why is the Muslim world silent to attrocities? Silence is solemn support. Arabs danced in the streets on 9/11/2001. They found joy in pain and suffering.

Nothing has changed. If some Muslims want peace they must fight alongside of us. Civilization and humanity have been attacked.

We fight with a conscience and try to limit civilian casualties. They target women and children purposefully. There must be no negotiating with murderers. They do not understand peace. They only know how to rearm.

We must effect four steps to secure our civilization.
1. We must wake up as a people to face the peril of our situation.
2. We must topple all regimes that refuse to hunt the jihadists.
3. We must kill, capture, or silence the jihadists everywhere.
4. We must eradicate Islam that demands the blood of our people.

What will you do?

Will you by your silence... give them the tools to destroy the innocent?
910group.com Begin to fight back.

Reexamining The Partitioning of Iraq

There have been many who have discussed what won't work in Iraq. Frankly there does not seem to be much that will work for sure. It is at this time that I think that it would be wise to reexamine partitioning Iraq. First, we must be realistic with the dangers of partitioning.

1. Kurdistan. The most obvious partition will be separating the kurds from the Sunni/Shiite mess. Unfortunatly this will get us into very hot water with Turkey. The southern section of Turkey has a high concentration of Kurds who have long petitioned for a Kurdistan. Turkey has violently opposed this movement. If we provide a Kurdistan on the border of Turkey it really won't take long for the Turkish Kurds to immigrate to the new country. This will seriously tick off Turkey. Once the Kurdistan/Turkey issue is resolved with a probable effect of serious long term issues with Turkey we can rather easily partition the Shiites from the Sunnis.

2. Baghdad. Who gets Baghdad? This is a serious question that will not go away. Both groups want this old seat of power which is a large part of the current problem. Should we put up a wall? Berlin II? Either way there are problems. Perhaps we can set up an international city like Jerusalem. Both peoples live in peace. But with such Muslim sects that may be impossible. It would either be better to put up a wall or better yet give the city to one of the groups in exchange for more territory outside the capital.

3. Border issues. The border must be a wide border that is mostly uninhabited. Unfortunatly there are many mortars and RPG's that are in militia hands. The border will have to cut through some inhabited areas. Rather many inhabited areas. These residential areas will have to be flattened and people forceably evicted. Both sides of the border would have to be patrolled by Shiite and Sunni army personnel. This will solve the issue of a Civil War and the issue will become one of national conflict. Which will hopefully be soldiers shooting at soldiers rather than terrorists cutting shopkeepers heads off.

4. Terrorist states. Would this plan not allow both sides to build up armies with the support of countries from their religious sects? Yes, Sunnistan would get much military support from Egypt, Saudia Arabia, etc and Shiitestan would be getting a lot of support from Iran. On the plus side both of these countries would have incentives to get rid of terrorists. Countries want soldiers while factions tolerate terrorists. Terrorists attack civilians while soldiers attack soldiers. Soldiers answer to the government. Governments answer to the people. We will provide continued military advising on anti-terrorism missions. If either country violates the other's border we withdraw support from that country.

5. Relocation. This will cause a global outcry as we seek racial cleansing of areas. I will say this once. We have done it before and we ought to do it again. (think Germans and Poles)

Lets look at the upside. We gain a valuable ally. Kurdistan. We hopefully will win the Shiites over and keep them away from full support of Iran. We will give the Shiites a vested interest in defending their country from an exterior enemy (Sunnistan). We will give the Sunnis a proper way of defending themselves and controlling their destiny. This plan will allow the Shiites and Sunnis to stop bickering over customs and laws. Best of all it puts the security issue in Iraqi hands and allows us to get out to rearm for dealing with Iran.

Issues that need to be resolved. Baghdad. Oil Revenues. Army Recruitment/Training. Border Creation.

Excellent Piece From Jihad Watch

This piece is from Jihadwatch.org... it is right on. If Islam is a religion of peace it better get on the ball with denouncing those who are "hijacking" their religion. Because it certainly seems like they readily house and harbor terrorists. They seem unable or at least unwilling to kick these militants out from under their religious umbrella.


November 09, 2006
"An almost airtight legal argument" against the Islamic death penalty for apostasy
Moderate Muslims have been an ongoing preoccupation of this site. I have repeatedly asked that they confront and refute the Islamic arguments of jihadists -- which is the one thing they must do if they are going to prevail in the Islamic community, and which shouldn't be difficult in light of their insistence that Islam is fundamentally peaceful.
But despite a great deal of bluster, there is no large-scale organized movement of Muslims countering the jihadists, and no coherent moderate Muslim theology that teaches against jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers on Islamic grounds, with the possible exception of academic constructs that have no roots in Islamic tradition and no following among Muslims, and the certain exception of deceptive pieces that make unbelievers feel great but likewise have no acceptance among Muslims.
And there are a lot of those deceptive pieces. Yesterday after Jihad Watch reader James alerted me to Dean Esmay's latest defamatory comment, about which I wrote here, I ventured again into the fetid waters of the Esmay site. I found that Esmay was commenting on a post by Ali Eteraz entitled "How The Death Penalty For Apostasy Will Fall."
This is just the sort of thing that we need to see, right? Islamic arguments against the death penalty for apostasy! Here then is a small sign of the Islamic reform that everyone (except those who believe that Islam is essentially peaceful and needs no reform) wants to see, right? And it starts out well: Eteraz acknowledges that there is a death penalty for apostasy, which many Islamic apologists in the West have denied, and promises an "almost airtight legal argument against it."
Classical Islamic Law — where national citizenship was based on one's religion — mandated a death penalty for converting out of Islam. This medieval remnant has too long been part of modern Islamic Law. There is now a palpable cultural movement against this. We knew that. Here, for edification, is an almost airtight legal argument against it. I posted this is on my blog and I am copying and pasting it.
*
A hadith narrative from Bayhaqi's Book of Hadith, regarding the Prophet's directive to kill an apostate woman, falls to critical evaluation.
It is interesting to note that the scholars did not even engage in a matn (textual) analysis. The hadith was lacking on isnad (chain of narration) grounds and they didn't even have to proceed to evaluating its text. Assuming the hadith would have passed the isnad test, the matn test would have involved looking to see if the hadith was a) logical and b) consistent with the Quran.
Click on Eteraz's link. This is no breakthrough. This is an examination of a hadith about killing apostate women. The fact that it is a weak hadith has long been noted, and that's why the schools of Islamic law are not unanimous about the necessity of killing female apostates -- as I noted in passing here. This is not a new development, and hence it is no sign of any evolution in the Islamic legal understanding of the death penalty for apostasy.
My prediction: one by one (here is another one revealed as weak) all of these tertiary apostasy hadith will be discredited. Then we'll be left with nothing but a couple of hadith which satisfy the isnad test — but which won't be able to satisfy the matn analysis. Why? Because the Quran does not legislate an earthly punishment for leaving Islam, so when a hadith contradicts that, it has become inconsistent with the Quran, and therefore questionable.
Click on the link again. It's a hadith about giving the apostate a chance to repent -- not about the death penalty for apostasy itself. Does Eteraz think people will not click on his links? Moreover, he asserts that the death penalty for apostasy contradicts the Qur'an -- funny how all the many Islamic jurists who have upheld the death penalty for apostasy over the centuries, in all the schools of Islamic law, never seem to have noticed that.
UPDATE: Even as I say that, here is THE authoritative hadith on the issue of apostasy (cited in both Muslim and Bukhari), becoming highly questionable in light of a matn (textual) analysis. You may not realize it now, but this is big.
Yes, click the link. See anything in there about this hadith, in which Muhammad says "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" (من بدل دينه فاقتلوه), being inauthentic? I don't either. In fact, its multiple attestation is affirmed:
This narrative or a part of it with some variations has been reported in Bukhari (narrative no. 2854, 6524 and 6525), Muslim (narrative no. 1733), Mu'atta of Imam Malik (narrative no. 1413), Ibn Hibban (narrative no. 4475 and 5606), Abu Dawood (narrative no. 4351 and 4354), Tirmidhi (narrative no. 1458), Nissaiy (narrative no. 4059, 4060, 4061, 4062, 4063, 4064, 4065 and 4066), Ibn Maajah (narrative no. 2535), Nissaiy's Sunan al-Kubraa (narrative no. 3522, 3523, 3524, 3525, 3526, 3527, 3528 and 3529), Bayhaqiy (narrative no. 16597, 16598, 16599, 16635, 16636, 16637, 16654, 16658 and 17841), Ahmad ibn Hanbal (narrative no. 1871, 2551, 2552, 2968, 19681 and 22068), Abu Ya`laa (narrative no. 2532 and 2533), Humaidiy (narrative no. 533), Abd al-Razzaq (narrative no. 9413, 18705 and 18706), Ibn Abi Shaybah (narrative no. 28992, 29006, 32728, 33143 and 36491). The preferred text is reported in Bukhari's narrative no. 2854.
What's more, the article affirms the traditional rules of jihad and dhimmitude, which I have pointed out many times:
...In short, the Qur'an says that it is the unalterable law of God that when He sends His messenger to a people, the polytheists among these people are left with no option, but to accept His message or to face the punishment of death and sometimes complete annihilation.
The Qur'an goes further to tell us how this punishment was implemented on the polytheists from among the rejecters of the Prophet (pbuh). It tells us that although the previous nations of the messengers of God were annihilated, because of their rejection, through (apparently) natural calamities, the believers of Muhammad (pbuh), because God has given them rule in a land (Madinah), shall fight the rejecters and, thereby, through these believers shall God implement His punishment (Al-Tawbah 9: 14 - 16). It directs them that the Mushrikeen should be killed, without any exception. They should only be allowed to live if they accept Islam (Al-Tawbah 9: 5). On the other hand, it also directs them that the Jews and the Christians (because they were not polytheists - i.e. Mushrik), even if they do not enter the folds of Islam, they may be allowed to live if they accept to live under the Muslim rule and agree to pay the appointed Jizyah (Al-Tawbah 9: 29).
All it has are some textual variants: in some versions, Muhammad doesn't say "kill him," he says, "break his neck." Oh, I feel so much better! Reform is at hand!
But the weakness of his argument doesn't stop Eteraz from rushing on to some sweeping conclusions:
Let me say it again: there is no Quranic basis for an EARTHLY punishment for apostasy. (Maududi tried to find one but he failed). As such, the death penalty for apostasy is rooted in the hadith. Within the three links above, the single most important apostasy hadith, and a couple of corollary hadith, have been discredited. It becomes really difficult, in light of this information, to persuasively argue that Islamic Law should permit a death penalty for apostasy.
Now, the issue is to spread these opinions so more people can get out of their ignorance.
Yes, it's all about ignorance, isn't it? Those poor ignorant Islamic scholars, all over the world, blundering in darkness and relying on this hadith in which Muhammad says "If anyone changes his religion, kill him" to legislate a death penalty for apostasy. If only they knew that Ali Eteraz has declared this a weak hadith on the grounds that in some versions Muhammad says to break the apostates' necks!
If this is the bandwagon of Islamic reform that we are all supposed to jump on, on pain of being called "traitors" and "liars" and "hatemongers" and everything else Dean Esmay has called me, I will take a pass. The problem, of course, is not that I am not convinced. It is that no Muslim who can read and check Eteraz's links will be convinced. No one who believes in the death penalty for apostasy will be convinced. And they are the ones who need to be convinced.

Solution to Election Fraud

PS- Burkhas make better voters.....(Whoa.... just kidding... just kidding)

North Korea Military Capabilities

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea or DPRK) is a formidable enemy in terms of land combat systems and highly trained special forces. The quality of all the non infantry forces of the country can be called into question but the shear volume of material and dedicated planning have made the DPRK an adversary that is fully capable of making good its intention of reunification with South Korea by force of arms. This post will analyze the intentions and the capabilities of the DPRK.

The intentions of North Korea are three fold: North and South Reunification, DPRK Leadership of Unified Korea, and Military Forced Reunification. Further it is important to note that previous military doctrine called for full mobilization of the population and full fortification of the population. In order to achieve their eventual goals the DPRK has provided fortified bunkers for a large portion of its populace. Most of the bunkers are immune to a general nuclear strike. Further there has been the emphasis on arming the whole population in the event of a military conflict. Though this emphasis on a general people's war was accepted public doctrine up till the 1990's there has been a significant shift over the past ten years. This new doctrine emphasizes the quality of the frontline troops, the depth of fire across the battlefield, command and control, and the flow of munitions and materials. In short they have made a launched into a full modernization of the tactics and strategies of their military. Chief among these strategies has been the new emphasis upon their special forces.

It is important to note that South Korea estimates that North Korea has stockpiled approx. 990,000 tons of ammunition most of which is already deployed to hardened munition dumps along the DMZ. Due to the current deployment of North Korean troops there would probably not be a significant increase in military traffic before the beginning of a full assualt. Estimates suggest that 70% of the North Korean forces are deployed within 100 Kilometers of the DMZ. Since the reunification assault is the primary purpose of the military the number of plans have been practiced repeatedly and are well understood by many of the oficers even down to the regimental levels. In short an assault on South Korea could begin at any moment.

Such an attack would be characterized by three stages. First stage: penetrate the DMZ, insert special forces to dissable command and control facilities as well as airfields, deep missile strikes, destruction of forces along the DMZ. Second Stage: isolate Seoul and consolidate conquered territory. Third stage: conquer the remaining territory and overwhelm remaining defenders. The whole general scenario relies heavily on strategic surprise and rapid achievement of objectives before South Korea can mobilize their reserves or heavy US reinforcements can land. Unfortunatly US land forces are limited by treaty to 37,500 servicemen in South Korea. Recently we have redeployed 10,000 of those soldiers to Iraq. Over the next year the proposal is to remove 2,500 more.

North Korea has approximatly 700,000 infantry, approximatly 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks prepositioned within 90 kilometers of the DMZ. This number constantly is increasing as North Korea slowly redeploys their forces towards the DMZ. The active army in North Korea consists of 1,000,000 men perhaps as high as 1,200,000 men. The reserves are to the number of seven million. The active military is one of the highest trained in the world with special emphasis placed on large scale operations. North Korea's air force consists of approximatly 110,000 personnel but its emphasis is in operating the thousands of anti-aircraft batteries scattered across the country. North Korea's main strategy is to neutralize South Korea's airforce thus ensuring at least neither side gaining air supremacy.

To put all this in proper context it is important to note the current capabilities of South Korea. Active army is standing around 560,000. The Marine Corps has approximatly 25,000 men on active duty. South Korea's Air Force is naturally far superior than its northern neighbors in both quantity and quality.

North Korea, China, and the Bomb

Word is coming in that there is activity at the nuclear test site in North Korea. There is the arrival of soldiers, trucks, and most incriminating is the construction of a building. Further there appears to be the construction of a second site that mirrors the first site. Are these the actions of a remorseful nation? But what might be very interesting is the involvement of China in the procedings.

Yes, it is true that China is trading in North Korea expecially for Iron Ore. China has now stood before the international community and stated that North Korea has explicitly promised no new detonations unless provoked. This is an unusual situation that calls for a bit of attention.

On October 9th, 2006 Kim ordered the detonation of a nuclear blast. He apparently only informed China 20 minutes before he decided to provoke the whole world. It is important to note the loss of face that Kim Jong Mad has dished China. China is no fool and does not really trust North Korea with a nuke. But China does not want to appear to be unsupportive of one of the few Communist countries in the world. Further China does not wish to lose its valuable trade with North Korea.

What to watch for? Watch for China playing it aloof until the second detonation. At that point China will come to the table and will begin to put serious pressure on North Korea. China does not want a war in that area of the world and certainly does not want to get pulled into a conflict with the USA without the benefit of preparation and surprise.

Further, watch for Kim to try to fix his nuke since the first one almost fizzled. It may take them awhile to try to figure out what went wrong. This may play into the political strategy since it allows them to cool down the international situation before blowing up another mountain. Unless we pull out of Korea expect them to detonate another nuke sooner or later.