Letter to America
The War on Terror - An Open Letter
Earlier today I did something I had not done in a long while. I consented to doing an interview on Islam - this one on WABC in New York. While I have done one thousand five hundred hours of national and regional talk radio interviews and debates on the direct connection between fundamental Islam and terrorism, I had retired from doing more because it became clear to me that the hosts and I were speaking a different language and using an entirely different filter to discern right and wrong.
Today was no exception. So to help remedy that problem, I have composed this Open Letter.
What is a War on Terror?
Let's begin with the most ignorant and injurious slogan: "the war on terror." It is ignorant because it is senseless and it is injurious because it camouflages our actual enemy, making us more vulnerable.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a foe. To declare war on terror is akin to saying that World War II should have been fought to rid the world of naval armadas and blitzkrieg. If we had focused our energies on killing every kamikaze suicide bomber and every S.S. terrorist, the political and religious regimes that manufactured them, unchecked, would have produced far more of them far faster than we could have killed them.
Terrorism is a common tactic. Sherman used terror when he marched to the sea, making war intolerable for the South. America used terror when we firebombed German and Japanese cities, making support for the war wane.
According to the Islamic Hadith and Qur'an, Muhammad was a terrorist - having established Islam through a series of armed raids against civilians. The most brutal and unjustified were against the Jewish communities of Qurayza and Khaybar. You can read what the Islamic scriptures have to say about them in the "Islam's Holocaust" and "Blood and Booty" chapters of Prophet of Doom.
The simple fact is that all wars are the result of religion, politics, or both. The current war is no exception. It is against a poligious doctrine called Islam.
For most of man's history, religion and politics have been inseparable. Cleric and king united to control and fleece the people. Islam is the best example - an equivalent blend of religion and politics. But let us not forget Communism and Nazism, the religions of man. They promote collectivism and control under the guise of secular humanism. These poligious doctrines caused the murder of over 100,000,000 people in the 30 years between 1917 and 1947. Today, the biggest killer is Islam. Over 90% of today's wars and terrorist acts are directly attributable to Muhammad's legacy. If only 20% of Muslims are fundamentalists, and thus Jihadists, it means that they are 2000% more lethal than the rest of us. Ought we not examine the religion that makes them that way?
In its first one hundred years, a river of blood flowed from Muhammad's feet. His religion turned a once peaceful and self-reliant people violent and dependant. In the 3,000 years of recorded history between 2500 B.C.E. to 500 C.E. there isn't a single incident in all of recorded history of Arabs leaving Arabia to conquer or plunder anyone. Then Muhammad invented a religion based upon jihad - holy war and plunder. He called it Islam - submission. Muhammad personally led 75 terrorist raids, all against civilians and exclusively for the purpose of stealing booty and gaining power and control. Within a year of his death, his successor led the War of Compulsion and forever robbed Arabia of any semblance of freedom. In the next ten years, without any provocation, the first Muslims attacked and conquered civilians in Israel, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, and Turkey. Within its first 100 years, Islamic terrorists had ravaged and plundered every civilization from Spain to India. What changed these people if it was not Islam?
While Islam continued to be tyrannical, brutal and bloody, in the interest of time, I'm going to jump ahead to the obvious: Islam was solely responsible for causing Muslims to fly planes into our buildings. The suicide bombers not only used Islam's signature tactic, they confessed to the crime, leaving video taped recitals from the Qur'an behind and by shouting "Allah Akbar" - Allah is greatest as they perpetrated their attack. Moreover, like the Jihadists who are killing us in Iraq, they all came out of mosques.
In the case of the second World Trade Center bombing, the plan was conceived by, and the participants were recruited from, the al-Kod mosque in Hamburg, Germany - not Kabul, Afghanistan. And the first World Trade Center bombing was masterminded by Shiek Ar-Rahman - a man named after Muhammad's first god. The blind sheik is the world's foremost authority on the Qur'an - having served as the senior professor of Qur'anic studies at Islam's premier university, Al Azhar in Cairo - before he was exiled for having assassinated Anwar Sadat. If Islam is peaceful, that's hard to explain.
A nation which lashes out against a tactic rather than the actual enemy, the religious and/or political doctrine motivating the assault, is destined to lose. Until Americans come to understand who the terrorists are (good Muslims) and why they kill (Islam), we have no chance of protecting ourselves from them. They will destroy our largest cities with nuclear or biological weapons and we will lose all we hold dear as a result.
Can America Establish Democracy?
The first, last, and only democracy in human history was an oligarchy called the Delian League, which in less than 50 years disintegrated because its leaders became imperialists and elected to do what we are doing - compel compliance. So when politicians claim to be establishing a democracy in Iraq, they are displaying their ignorance of democracy and the cultures in which it flourishes and shrivels.
For democracy to prevail, even a republic to succeed, the voters need to be enlightened and responsible. And they need to cherish the virtues which nurture education, freedom, and choice.
So let's survey the political landscape. Over 90% of nations in which the majority of the people consider themselves Christians are republics. Relative freedom, choice, enlightenment, and prosperity reign. Over 90% of nations in which the majority of the people are Muslims are dictatorships in which the people have relatively no freedoms, choice, access to truth, or prosperity.
So what is it that causes one culture to embrace freedom, choice, enlightenment, and prosperity and the other to be hostile to these things? The answers are as obvious as the evidence is clear. The Judeo-Christian Scriptures are based upon knowing and understanding truth and embracing it while condemning deception. Yahweh wants people to be free to choose. The Islamic scriptures are the opposite. The fifth surah says that Muslims who question the Qur'an will lose their faith and become apostates. The fourth surah tells good Muslims to murder apostates. There is a significant disincentive to learn and question, to be enlightened. More importantly, Islam revolves around the concept of "submit and obey." The Qur'an is completely hostile to freedom and choice. As proof, I organized every comment Allah made on the subject under the banner of "Freedom and Choice" in the "Muhammad's Own Words" Appendix of Prophet of Doom. Check it out for yourself.
For freedom and choice to prevail, the culture/religion/politics of the people must promote them. Islam does not. It never has and it never will. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. To ignore the obvious does not make us enlightened or compassionate. But it will make us dead.
Following World War II America was able to promote freedom, choice, enlightenment, and prosperity in Germany and Japan because we had correctly identified and defeated the politicians and doctrines responsible for tyranny and terror. We banned them before we attempted to establish what they strove against. Yet in Iraq, we have partnered with, financed, and promoted our real enemy, and the enemy of freedom, choice, enlightenment, and prosperity. As a result we will fail.
What Is Going To Happen In Iraq?
Iraqis will elect a Shi'ite government and they will impose an Islamic state. The Suni's will fight them and America will be caught in the middle of a civil war. It will be like Vietnam all over again.
Under Islamic law and unified with Iran, Iraq will become what it was not - a clear and present danger to America. We will have set our actual enemy and the enemy of freedom on the throne. And we will have squandered American prestige and wasted thousands of American lives and billions of dollars in the process.
As in the case of Vietnam where we allowed Americans to die until we had achieved "peace with honor," so it will be in Iraq. The peace accords were of no value because the signatories did not share our values. The Communists ignored the document and imposed their will on the people. It was as if we had never been there.
Muslims, like Communists, do not honor treaties. The Qur'an says that any treaty between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is not binding on the Muslim. Muhammad used this tactic when he had too insufficient a force to invade and control his hometown-Mecca. He signed the peace treaty of Hudibyah in which he agreed not to fight with, rob, or terrorize Mecca for ten years. The following year, with 10,000 men carrying swords and spears, he returned and conquered them - imposing Islamic law. Throughout his career, Muhammad authorized lying to achieve his means. It is why he is noted for saying: "I have been made victorious with terror," and "war is deception."
Sad to say, but our engagement in Iraq will end just like Vietnam. The only question is: how many will die before we declare victory and leave?
Have the Terrorists Hijacked Islam?
While it's not true, if it were it wouldn't matter. History tells us that as little as 3% of the population, sufficiently indoctrinated and vicious, will hold sway over the 97%. As evidence, only 3% of Russians were Communists in 1917 and only 3% of Germans were Nazis in 1924 yet they controlled everyone. While no one knows what percentage of Muslims are good ones - fundamentalists following Muhammad's example - versus peaceful Muslim hypocrites, at least three times three percent and most likely ten times that amount are jihadists. That is why most Muslims revere Osama bin Laden and continue to praise and protect him. That is why so many Muslims strap bombs to their bodies - murdering and mutilating everyone in their path.
The minority will tyrannize and terrorize the majority when the few are immersed in sufficiently vicious and hateful doctrines. This is why I dedicated 75 pages of Prophet of Doom to a side-by-side comparison of Hitler's Mein Kampf with remarkably similar passages from Muhammad's Qur'an and Hadith. When we come to realize that Islam and Nazism are virtually indistinguishable in their prophet, his words, ambitions and deeds, we will be empowered to save ourselves from them.
The Qur'an is a declaration of war against all mankind. The Hadith is a terrorist manifesto. Islam's lone prophet, Muhammad, according to these sources, was a mass murderer, pirate, pedophile, rapist, slave trader and terrorist. Therefore, rather than having corrupted Islam, the terrorists have actually been corrupted by it. Simply stated, all good Muslims are terrorists and all peaceful Muslims are hypocrites.
If you'd like proof of these conclusions, either read tomorrow's newspaper or Prophet of Doom. The book puts every deed and word Muhammad perpetrated and declared on the subject of war and terror in chronological order and into the context of his life so that we would stop living in denial. But for those pressed for time, turn to the sections of the "Muhammad's Own Words" Appendix entitled: "Terrorism, Jihad, Fighting, Martyrdom, War, and Torture." There you will discover over 1,000 quotes from the Islamic scriptures on the subject. While the truth isn't pretty, knowing it is the first step in saving our nation.
Are There Moral Justifications for War?
There are only three moral motivations for war: 1) To defend the nation against a people and doctrine that have attacked it. 2) To preemptively strike a people and doctrine that represent a clear and present danger so as to keep them from attacking the nation in the future. 3) To rid otherwise defenseless people from tyrants who are terrorizing them. To impose one's value system on others isn't a worthy or achievable goal. And in cases two and three above, the will to engage must be tempered with an analysis of the cost and the likelihood of achieving a favorable result.
In this light, let's look at the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Our initial justification was to lash out at those who had bombed our buildings. But there were no Afghanis or Iraqis on those planes. The suicide bombers were Muslims, 80% of whom were from Saudi Arabia. And yet we continued to enrich Saudi Arabia, sending the Islamic warlords $350,000,000,000 since the attack took place and at the same time removed our troops and planes - all of them from Saudi soil.
The plan to bomb America was conceived, staffed, and financed from the Al-Kod mosque in Hamburg, Germany. The mosque still exists and the imams there still preach hate and violence so we have not retaliated against the source of our anguish. But by invading Afghanistan and by blaming al-Qaeda rather than Islam, we have squandered American blood and coin, making ourselves more vulnerable in the process.
America pushed the two fundamentalist Islamic regimes in Afghanistan - the Taliban and al-Qaeda - out of a relatively meaningless dirt hole of a nation into one of only two Islamic countries with nuclear bombs. So today, the Islamic forces who wish us harm are more comfortable, more plentiful, better financed, and better armed than they were before we began. In time they will assassinate the tyrannical general who controls Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. In so doing fundamentalist Muslims will gain access to the very weapons we sought to keep from them, and they will use them on us. In other words, what we did was stupid, even suicidal.
For those who believe our invasion was humanitarian, and thus justified, consider this: American forces only control a five mile ring around Kabul. The rest of the nation is still under the control of Islamic warlords. Only now, they are better armed. Afghanistan is now the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and their new Constitution is based upon Islamic Law. In other words: we put our enemy on the throne. The country has become so savage, the bravest humanitarian organization on the planet - Doctors Without Borders - has withdrawn from it.
Turning to Iraq, the picture is no less horrific. In Tea With Terrorists I predicted that GWB would invade Iraq a year before he did so. Moreover I predicted the consequence of his actions. That does not make me a prophet - just informed.
The reasons we went into Iraq were political. GWB and his advisor Karl Rove craved the popularity and adulation that goes along with being a war time president. They succeeded. A failed administration, legislatively and economically, and an unpopular and inarticulate man, were re-empowered. In my meeting with Karl and George during the infancy of the first campaign, the soon to be president told me that he longed for a crisis because that's when he would shine. All three books written by insiders of this administration say that during January of the first inauguration, GWB was actively persuing reasons for invading Iraq.
So during a time that the CIA was briefing Congress with news that Iran, not Iraq, was the nation in possession of the most deadly WMDs and the nation most likely to use them against America, GWB told the American people just the opposite. He told us that the "smoking gun" would be a "mushroom cloud" if we did not invade Iraq and rid Saddam of his Weapons of Mass Destruction. So we invaded; but there were none. Someone wasn't telling the truth - bad, considering he's our president. But it's horrific considering two American soldiers have been sacrificed and $1.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money have been wasted on average every week since we attacked - all based upon a lie. It's like Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that caused Congress to approve LBJ's invasion never occurred.
So what did the liar do? He lied again. This time he said that we have to invade Iraq because Saddam was working with and equipping al-Qaeda. But that was not true. In fact the truth is bone chilling. GWB's father's decision to invade Iraq in the first Gulf War is what led to the 9/11 attack.
Saddam Hussein invaded his neighbor, Kuwait, because he coveted power and money. Saudi Arabia would have been next. So the Saudi hero, Osama bin Laden, still reveling in his rousing (and American aided) victory against the Russians in Afghanistan and his instigation of Islamic holocaust against 2,000,000 Christians in the Sudan, also American aided, came home. He told the Fahd warlords that he and his al-Qaeda holy warriors would be Islam's savior. They would push the infidel Saddam Hussein - a man and regime they detested and saw as un-Islamic - out of the holy Islamic lands. But the Fahd family knew better than to trust a good Muslim, so they turned to the United States for help. Jealous and enraged, the spurned warrior aided and abetted the ruthless attack on his rival - America. 9/11 was the result.
While al-Qaeda and Saddam were bitter enemies, once Saddam was out of power, thanks to America, al-Qaeda jumped right in to fill the void and continued its terrorist assault against us. We created the climate and the opportunity for our enemy to succeed where they had previously failed. No meaningful links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have ever been found. They have proved to be as much of a mirage as were WMDs.
Thwarted again, GWB, hypocritically stood on his soapbox and told the American people that the justification for spilling American blood and coin in Iraq was that Saddam was a bad guy. At least it wasn't a lie. But now, as a justification for war, we were required to consider the cost and evaluate the likelihood of achieving a superior result. Question one: Would you trade the lives of 1,500 American men and women for Saddam's head? Question two: Would you spend $300,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars to rebuild what you destroyed? Question three: Is an Islamic state under the control of Shi'ite clerics (who possess nuclear weapons and the world's second largest oil reserves) better for America than a secular state under the control of a two bit tyrant who had no WMD's and who was spending his money on palaces?
The question no politician or journalist in America seemed willing to contemplate before our invasion of Iraq was this: If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and if he intended to use them against Americans then the cost of occupying Iraq would have been far too high for he would have deployed them against our troops - 250,000 of them. If Saddam didn't have WMD and/or didn't intend to use them against Americans, then there was no justification for risking one American life to remove him much less a thousand.
While there can be moral justification for helping people who are oppressed, Iraq wasn't a rational or moral candidate for salvation. The people of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Libya, and especially the Sudan are considerably more terrorized by their Islamic tyrants than were the Iraqis by their secular thug. Further, the likelihood, while slim, of leaving a less brutal and tyrannical regime in our wake, was more favorable in those other nations. At the very least, in the Sudan or in East Timor we could have prevented Muslims from murdering 3,000,000 Christians.
GWB, living in denial, ignorantly and arrogantly, changed his story once again. Without dealing with the underlying reason that 95% of Islamic nations are dictatorial, he praised Islam calling it good and peaceful, and then said that establishing a democracy in Iraq would be good for the world - a goal worthy of an ever escalating number of American lives. But Islam and freedom, Islam and choice, Islam and enlightenment, Islam and prosperity, are as distant from one another as Nazism was from peace.
Had we chosen to partner with, enrich and support, Nazism in Germany following the Second World War, would they be enjoying freedom and prosperity today? Did America's willingness to partner with Stalin and Mao during that war liberate the Russian and Chinese people or doom them?
So What Are You Going to Do?
Is unjustified optimism, born in ignorance and denial, compassionate or enlightened when it leads to the loss of 1500 American lives? Was it moral to re-elect a president who has consistently deceived while leading America into a morass from which there is no escape? Is the real problem the people who voted for him or the man who misled them? Mind you, as a Constitutionalist, I am more conservative than anyone reading this open letter and as a Christian I am part of the group responsible for GWB's empowerment. So it is with a heavy heart that I ask Americans these questions: Is Islam solely at fault for the terror Muslims have perpetrated or do those who have embraced, enriched and tolerated Islam share some blame? Who is responsible for the mess we find ourselves in? Is there any way out?
The answers are yes, we are, and Yahweh. I encourage you to read The Future's History if you seek salvation, Tea With Terrorists if you wish to live free of Islamic terror, and Prophet of Doom if you want to understand the true nature of this enemy. They are all free on the www.ProphetOfDoom.net site.