Global Threats Leading to the Leftist/Marxist -- Islamist Takeover

Conflict of Ideologies

Samuel Huntington wrote the popular book TheClash of Civilizations a few years ago. He spoke of the coming conflictbetween the West and Islam. As I see it we are now facing an even greaterthreat with the clash of ideologies. The conflict of ideologies extendsbeyond the conflicts with Islam and extends to the battles we are facing evenwithin our own culture.

The Clashof Ideologies is often overlooked in both our political conflicts here in America as well as within the Jihadist movement.

The Jihadistsdrive to instill Islamic law into Muslim society, and ultimately recreate thatsociety under their interpretation of the law, which often translates into anendorsement for violent jihad as practiced by bin Laden and others. Ideology isoften overlooked and is considered separate from the strategic and operationalaspects of Islamist militancy. The ideology of this movement is similar to, oreven worse than, the Nazi ideology, and that it should be dealt accordingly.Therefore, I still believe that one of the primary missions of theinternational community today is to repeat its experience with Nazism and todeal with this dangerous barbarian culture exactly as it dealt with the Naziculture. If this does not happen, the near future is liable to bring manyevents, the consequences of which will be far more severe for all of humanitythan the consequences of World War II. See also: TheWar Against Global Jihadism by Peter Wehner deputy assistantto the President and director of the White House's Office of StrategicInitiatives.

Now let's go tothe ideological movements in the U.S.

Dinesh D'Souza theRishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution commented in the article Pelosi'screw and Osama bin Laden share common goal 'The Pelosi Democratssometimes appear to be just as eager as Osama bin Laden for President Bush tolose his war on terror. Why do I say this? Because if the PelosiDemocrats were seeking Bush's success, then their rhetoric and actions now andover the past three years are pretty much incomprehensible. By contrast, if youpresume that they want Bush's war on terror to fail, then their words andbehavior make perfect sense. From the point of view of new House Speaker Pelosiand her fellow liberal Democrats, bin Laden today is, well, a smallproblemListen to Pelosi and her colleagues on the left speaking about Bush,however, and it's clear they regard him as a very big problem.'

'Sen. Robert Byrdcompares Bush to Hermann Goering and the Nazis. Hillary Clinton accuses him of 'turningback the clock on the 20th century ... systematically weakening the democratictradition. ... There has never been an administration more intent upon consolidatingand abusing power.' Sen. Ted Kennedy charges that 'no president in America's history has done more damage to our country than George W. Bush.''

'Whether itrealizes this or not, the Bush administration is facing a kind of liberal-Islamicalliance: a sympathetic relationship that leading leftists in America have with Islamic radicals around the world. I'm not suggesting the two groupsactually like each other. Actually, they despise each other. Leftists likePelosi, Barney Frank and Michael Moore despise bin Laden and his fellowradicals because they are religious fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic[Shariah] holy law. That means goodbye to women's rights and gay rightsand, in all candor, goodbye to people like Pelosi, Frank and Moore. By the sametoken, Islamic radicals like bin Laden detest the American left because, asthey see it, the left is the party of atheism, family breakdown and culturaldepravity. The left is in the vanguard of imposing secularism and libertinesocial values not only in America but also abroad.'

'But the man whothreatens the Islamic radicals and the American left even more than eithergroup threatens the other is Bush. Leftists don't like radical Muslims like binLaden but they absolutely hate Bush. Why?

'Because from the Cultural left's point of view, binLaden threatens to impose Shariah in Baghdad but Bush threatens to imposeShariah in Boston. Bin Laden is the far enemy but Bush is the near enemy.'

To quote DineshD'Souza in the introduction to his book: THE ENEMY AT HOME:

'What they hate is conservative America. [They] are fiercely loyal to the American values that theycherish, and it is in the name of those values that they are ready to take onthe Bush administration. The lesson of these examples is that thecultural left is unwilling to fight a serious and sustained battle againstIslamic radicalism and fundamentalism because it is fighting a more threateningpolitical battle against American conservatism and Americanfundamentalism. The left cannot support Bush's efforts to promoteliberal democracy abroad because it is more important for the left to reversethe nation's conservative tide by defeating Bush and his socially conservativesallies at home. In other words, the left's war is not against beardedMuslims who wear long robes and carry rifles; it is against pudgy white men whowear suits and carry bibles. While the left is certainly not comfortablewith Islamic mullahs, it is vastly more terrified of George Bush, Dick Cheney,Antonin Scalia, James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh.'

See also Michael Medved's article of March 21 The Essence of Liberalism: Embracing Life's Loserswhich described what constitutes the essenceof modern liberalism.

Fr. John Malloy,pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Church in San Francisco, penned an 'Openletter to Nancy Pelosi,' on February 1, inthe letter he commented:

'Nancy, you arefooling yourself and I fear fooling many good Catholics. You are simply not insync with the Catholic Church. Until you change your non-Catholic positions,you should stop calling yourself Catholic. Your record shows that you supportembryonic stem cell research, Planned Parenthood, contraception, familyplanning funding, allowing minors to have an abortion without parental consent,and are against making it a crime to harm a fetus, etc. etc.'

'Do we not electpoliticians to make laws that help people honor their responsibilities, such asprotecting life itself? Can politicians not tell someone else not to kill? Ifyou can kill a baby in the womb, Nancy, why not outside of it? Oh wait, you arein favor of partial birth abortion, so-called because the baby sticks out ofthe 'mother' about halfway, while the 'doctor' sucks out the baby's brain. Thatseems comparable to the choice the Nazis made killing six million Jews.'

'Yes, Nancy, we(together with your pro-life family) would all like it if you were not sovocally pro-choice, i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholicdoctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass.'

Why? From the vantage point of many cultural liberals,Christians are as dangerous as Islamists, and President Bush is no less a threatthan Bin Laden.

Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri Echoes the Mantra ofthe Cultural Liberals

There was a time after 9/11 when therelease of an al-Qaeda videotape would create a major stir among Americans andwould be covered by the major news networks. These days, many dismiss the tapesas little more than propaganda.

The voice of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number twoindividual in al-Qaeda, is featured in a new twenty-one minute speech titled: Palestineis Our Concern and the Concern of Every Muslim', which was issued byal-Qaeda's multimedia production arm, as-Sahab, on March 11, 2007.The SITEInstitute has some relevant excerpts from the new tape.

In the tape Zawahiri argues '...for physical jihad [and]that American strength is waning and is suffering from defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan Continuing to build a case against Western moral bankruptcy in itsrelationship with Muslims, Zawahiri cites hypocrisy in trials involving theInternational Criminal Court, particularly as it relates to genocide in Bosnia and war crimes in Darfur. He questions: 'Who gave these murders the right to appoint judgesto interfere in the affairs of Muslims? What right does the Security Councilhave to interfere in the affairs of Muslims, and set up the courts which acquitthis one and condemn that one, when the hands of its criminal members drip withthe blood of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Algeria, Chechnya and East Turkistan? How can America refer the case of Darfur to an internationalcourt which it itself doesn't recognize and refuses to be subject to? What sortof tyranny is this world ruled by?'

Zawahiri calls upon Muslims to reject politics and engage in jihadagainst the enemy. He states: 'they must continue their Jihad in Allah's pathuntil the liberation of every land of Islam invaded by the infidels, from Spain to Iraq, and until the Word of Allah is supreme and the Caliphate returns to protect thesanctuary of Islam and spread its Shariah.'

PresidentBush's plea for more patience with the Iraq war on March 19, as House SpeakerNancy Pelosi said the nation has lost confidence in the president's 'failedapproach.' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added that Democrats won't give upon efforts to bring an end to the war. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid andthe despicable John Murtha announce to the nation that we are losing the war,and moreover, can't possibly win it. You really have to hate America and its people to lust after the defeat of your own country. Yet aside from Osamabin Laden and his crews of merciless killers, the people most dedicated toseeing the United States defeated in a battle for the future of the world arethe liberal Democrats now feebly trying to run the Congress.

Decades from now, historians will discover that theUnited States, the West and the international community were being targeted byglobal ideologi≠cal movements which emerged in the 1920s, survived World War IIand the Cold War, and carefully chose the timing of its onslaught againstdemocracy.

Pacifism, Self-hatred, and Complacency

If one looks at themilitary strength of the West compared to Iran, victory would seem to beinevitable, even if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. Iran does not have themilitary machine that the Axis powers had in World War II, nor the Soviet Union during the cold war. The Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance may be moreeffective than the earlier totalitarian movements operating individually. Theycould even win. Thats because, however strong the Western hardware, itssoftware contains some potentially fatal bugs. Three of them -- pacifism,self-hatred, and complacency combined with the Oil Weapon could provide neededhorsepower to succeed. See also: How the West Could Lose byDaniel Pipes December 26, 2006.

"Its always amazedme how quickly the American left managed to twist the 9/11 attacksinto aclub with which to beat their own country. I recall watching the smoke from thetowers late in the day, exhausted from stress and emotions I could scarcelyidentify, and thinking," Theyll never be able to defile this." It was the endof the postwar flirtation with apostasy, I thought, the end of politicalfrivolity, the birth of a new kind of patriotism, one annealed by fire, onethat would become part of framework of the country, one that would last." See: Breakingthe Hold of Hegemonist Doctrine by J.R. Dunn writing in Real ClearPolitics.

"But after what inretrospect appears to be a pitifully short period, they were back, and inforce, and they have never retreated since. Contrary to consensus belief, itdidnt begin with Iraq. It began with Afghanistan, starting only a month afterthe attacks, and built up from there. The Leftists Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, Durbin, Murtha... The list could go on forpage after page, all of them speaking in identical terms, all repeating thesame code words - Halliburton, blood for oil, Abu Ghraib - all tearing intotheir country in a fashion unseen even in the Vietnam era."

Dennis Prager writing on Townhall on July 6, 2004 Michael Moore and the Problem of American (And Jewish) Self-Hatred commented:

"Many on the American Leftloathe America (they love the Constitution and their vision of what America could be) and have contempt for the average American. That is why most of the Lefthas such admiration for Michael Moore... Elsewhere, he speaks of America as bringing immeasurable misery and sadness to the world and as essentiallydeserving attacks on it."

I would add thatthe supporters with the three fatal bugs have joined forces in theLeftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance and further they have joined in thesupporting the apocalyptic ideologies. See: Iraq,Iran, Global Warming and The Apocalypse by David J. Jonsson. Both the Green and Islamist movements seek social transformation of society.The Islamist in seeking to establish the "Islamic kingdom of God on earth," not necessary though military might but through gradual Islamization includingeconomic means as described in the paper: IslamicEconomics and Shariah Law: A Plan for World Domination by David J. Jonsson.

The Increasing Number of Countries with Ballistic Weapons

Iran's push for nuclear weapons is accompanied by its development of ICBMs. The threatof a nuclear armed Iran is no longer just a problem for Israel and their Arab neighbors. Iran's development of ICBMs that could reach Washington DC brings the threat home with added urgency. The nuclear Iran is not just a local issue.

Iran has just completed conversion of a powerful ballistic missile into a satellite launchvehicle. But the 25-30-ton rocket could be a wolf in sheep's clothing to testlonger-range Iranian missile technologies. The Bush administration will likelyview the vehicle as a rogue rocket developed in a cabal of Iran and North Korea. The new launcher has recently been assembled and 'will lift off soon,' saysAlaoddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security andForeign Policy Commission.' Said Aviation Week in their article of January 17,2007, ShiaIslamic satellite set for liftoff on ICBM cloaked as space booster,. And Iran did it!

An Iranian ICBMwith a range of nearly 2,500 miles could reach as far west as Central Europeand well into Russia, China and India. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency hastold Congress that Iran in fact may be capable of developing a 3,000-mi.-rangeICBMs by 2015.

It isalso troubling that Russia has provided $700 million in surface-to-airmissiles to Iran and eight new aerial refueling tankers to China, according to a new Congressional study. A major strength of the U.S. military establishment is our ability to refuel our aircraft in flight and ships atsea. Russia is also providing weapons to Venezuela. The sales to improve Iran'sair-defense system are particularly troubling to the United States because theywould complicate the task of Pentagon planners should the president order airstrikes on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. The Russian weapon sales toimprove Venezuela's air-defense system are also troubling.

The Role of the Leftist

We can talk aboutICBMs and all the other weapons being provided by Russia and China around the world. At the bottom line, the involvement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian'sclose relations with Chavez in Venezuela, his relations with Cuba and Nicaragua, places the threat just 90 miles from the shores of America. And, thisrelationship is supported by the Leftists with the likes of Chindy Shaheen andthe anti-war activist organizations including Code Pinkand Unitedfor Peace and Justice, and radical environmental organizations including Oxfam, GlobalExchange and the RainForestAction Network. These groups have intent of destroying America from the inside.

AsAmericans enjoyed their Independence Day fireworks last year, LieutenantGeneral Trey Obering, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency chief, was watchingthe pyrotechnics display that Kim Jong-il was providing thousands of miles awayin North Korea.

Theair force general thought the launch by Pyongyang of its previously untestedTaepodong-2, an intercontinental ballistic missile with the potential to reachthe US, could even provide the first live use of America's ballistic missiledefense system.

'Wehad turned the system on before but it was the first time that there was acredible threat,' says Gen Obering. The North Korean authorities 'had put amissile out there that we felt was capable of reaching the U.S., and they were not telling us what was on top of that missile'.

TheTaepodong-2 failed just seconds into flight. But eight months on, what refusesto die down is the controversy over the Pentagon program itself, in particularits roll-out to Eastern Europe. Despite enduring doubts about the scale of boththe threat facing the US and the efficacy of missile defense, Washington's wishto place interceptors for the system in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic has provoked a furious response from Russia and signs of cracks within NATO.

Whilethe US argues that missile defense is essential to deal with the 21st centuryprospect of rogue states - such as North Korea or Iran - becoming armed withweapons of mass destruction, Moscow protests that the Pentagon's scheme amountsto a remilitarization of Europe.

The Chinese Strategy for Sea-lane Denial

The Chinesestrategy is control of space and sea-lanes. Therefore, it requires asea-lane-denial strategy.

In January 2007,Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, citing U.S. intelligence sources, has reported that China has successfully tested an anti-satellite (ASAT)system. According to the report, which U.S. officials later confirmed, asatellite was launched, intercepted and destroyed a Feng Yun 1C weathersatellite, also belonging to China, on Jan. 11. The weather satellite waslaunched into polar orbit in 1999. The precise means of destruction is notclear, but it appears to have been a kinetic strike (meaning physicalintercept, not laser) that broke the satellite into many pieces. The U.S. government wants to reveal as much information as possible about this event in orderto show its concern -- and to show the Chinese how closely the Americans aremonitoring their actions. This event opens up the totally new front to defendagainst. It is of the utmost concern to the United States militaryestablishment. It is huge!

The Jan. 17 magazinereport was not the first U.S. intelligence leak about Chinese ASATcapabilities. In August 2006, the usual sources reported China had directed lasers against U.S. satellites. It has become clear that China is in the process of acquiring the technology needed to destroy or blind satellitesin at least low-Earth orbit, which is where intelligence-gathering satellitestend to operate.

Nuclear Proliferation

What is difficultto understand is that after the severe danger of nuclear war during the longdecades of the Cold War, we are still only 30-minutes or less from nuclearincineration. The reason is that included among the 27,000 nuclear weaponsstockpiled in the world, thousands of U.S. and Russian strategic nuclearwarheads are on hair-trigger alert. The RAND Corporation reports these weaponscould be launched in a few minutes notice destroying both countries in an hour.

Russia's defense minister SergeiIvanov on February 7 laid out a plan that aims to surpass Soviet-eramilitary might. A rising tide of oil revenues has enabled Russia to boost defense spending following a squeeze on the military in the 1990s. SergeiIvanov's statements appeared aimed at raising his profile at home ahead of the2008 election in which he is widely seen as a potential contender to succeedPresident Vladimir Putin. But they also seemed to reflect a growing chill inRussian-U.S. relations and the Kremlin's concern about U.S. missile defense plans. See also the article: The GrandChess Masters--The Bear and the Dragon by David J. Jonsson.

While Moscow has confronted fundamentalists at homehead-on, it nonetheless pursues a policy of support for Iran and Syria--and, by extension, Hezbollah. In doing so, Russia's foreign policy has becomeantithetical to its own national security.

The risk nuclearmiscalculations is further increased by the expansion of the number of nuclearpowers with the means available for delivery and transnational organizationssuch as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah acquiring nuclear materials.

Although some of thepotential new entrants into the Nuclear Club are considered friendly, futureregime change may make them unstable and future foes as occurred in Iran. Such a doomsday scenario could result from an accidental missile launch, an earlywarning system error, terrorism, miscalculation or simply desire for worlddomination.

The threat stillposed by these stockpiles and the new entrants into the Nuclear Club,particularly in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, is so dire thatBulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS)--the keepers of the Doomsday Clockcited the issue as among their chief concerns last month when they moved theiconic measure of global security forward from seven to five minutes beforemidnight. The increasing danger is the proliferation of nuclear weapons states,now numbering eight or nine, along with the prospect of others joining this macabreclub in the near future.

Nuclear arms racesmight emerge in regions other than the Middle East as well. Nuclear ArmedCountries are arising in Asia. The Asian countries are becoming morenationalistic. Asia has many countries with major territorial or politicaldisputes, including five with nuclear weapons (China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia). Japan and Taiwan could join the list. Most of thesecountries would have the resources to increase the size and quality of theirnuclear arsenals indefinitely if they so chose. They also seem to benationalist in a way that western European countries no longer are: they areparticularly mindful of their sovereignty, relatively uninterested ininternational organizations, sensitive to slights, and wary about changes inthe regional balance of military power.

Many of the components of the worldwide war with jihadismare con≠centrated in Pakistan. So far, Paki≠stan's radical Islamists havebeen able to block their government from taking back control of the country'swestern tribal areas and uprooting the funda≠mentalist organizations in itseast. But potentially even more dangerous is the possibility that jihadists couldtake control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. In this context, the most seri≠ousthreat to the United States would be the collapse of the Musharraf gov≠ernmentand the Pakistani military at the hands of radical Islamists. Should thishappen, the U.S. would be under direct nuclear threat from a nuclear-armedal-Qaeda regime--one that would have tremendous control over many other Muslimcountries. See: TheTruth About Talibanistan, Time August 2, 2006.

Asia might well be,'ripe for rivalry'--including nuclear rivalry if the United States were to stopserving as guarantor of the current order. In that case, the region would raiseproblems similar to those that would be posed by a nuclear Middle East.

If and when the U.S. is able to lift its attention from the Middle East, it will be finding itself a much betterplaced and more formidable China.

Six states--Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, according to theInternational Atomic Energy Agency are planning to go nuclear. In all sixcases, they are talking only of developing civilian nuclear energy programs, asinternational law permits that. But no one doubts that this sudden interest innuclear power has military implications.

Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute forStrategic Studies assumes these states want a 'security hedge' vis--vis Tehran. 'If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probablynot see this sudden rush.' It also marks an abrupt reversal among states whichuntil very recently had called for a nuclear-free Middle East, and for Israel to disarm.

Up to 30 more countries may develop atomic weapons if theproliferation of nuclear technology is not stopped, the IAEA--the UN's nuclearwatchdog has warned.

On February 6, 2007 according to the Burma Digest, Burma:A Potential Nuclear State (part-2) , theForeign Minister of Burma claimed his support of nuclear proliferation of Iran. This is not the first time that the military regime of Burma openly mentions aboutits favor in nuclear technologies. It has announced to join the nuclear clubsince 2002.

Although its claims are based on civil use and medicalresearch facilities, its actions to seek nuclear technologies and possiblenuclear weapons are more obvious by means of sending the military engineers to Russia to study nuclear science and establishing the secret nuclear plants inside Burma.

Increasing Military Strength of Russia and China And Now Joined by Middle East Countries and Even The Non-Aligned Nations.

While we haveaddressed the buildup of weapons and military strength in the usuallyidentified countries, the suppliers such as China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are providing weapons to the Non-Aligned Nations. Of particular importance tothe United States is the buildup in Venezuela and Cuba.

While the Iraq crisis continues, the strategy of the Grand Chess Masters--Russia the bear and China the dragon along with their pawns the Leftists, Marxists and Islamists continue todevelop and put in place their strategy for the ultimate goal of world domination.

'Ever since thecontinents started interacting politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia hasbeen the center of world powerFor America, the chief geopolitical prize isEurasia--and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and howeffectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.How America manages Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopoliticallyaxial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three mostadvanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map alsosuggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa'ssubordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopoliticallyperipheral to the world's central continent. About 75% of the world's peoplelive in Eurasia and most of the world's physical wealth as well, both in itsenterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world'sGNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources.'

The U.S. faces potential conflict in Eurasia, theMediterranean/Iraq/Iran, and the Horn of Africa and also in the Pacific withevents in North Korea. With the backing of Venezuela and Cuba by Iran/China/Russia, conflicts could also erupt in the Caribbean.

Lionel Beehner, Staff Writer Staff Writer for the Council on ForeignAffairs on November 1, 2006 wrote in the article Russia-IranArms Trade: 'Last year, Russia surpassed the United States as thedeveloping world's leader in arms deals, according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service(CRS). But Russia has increased military shipments to anti-U.S. states like Iran and Venezuela, not to mention potential adversaries like China, which concerns U.S. policymakers far more. Experts say Iran--as well as Syria--may have transferred some of these small arms to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.Also, Russia's arms relationship with Iran, the thinking goes, furthercomplicates efforts to impose punitive sanctions against Tehran for its allegedpursuit of nuclear weapons.'

Russia, in addition to control of gasshipments to Europe from Central Asia, has also signed on to supplying weaponsand security alignment with the Collective Security Treaty Organization,(CSTO). CSTO countries include Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Armenia. CSTO has also formed a military cooperation agreementwith India. India and Russia have signed on August 20th, a far-reachingmilitary cooperation agreement. Although not officially directed againstthe U.S., the purpose of this agreement is understood. The two countries have 'agreedto focus on joint war games in services-to-services interaction, jointdevelopment of new weapons systems and training of Indian military personnel',(Press Trust of India, 21 August 2006). Military-technicalcooperation between Russia and India is worth $1.5 billion a year. The MiGCorporation is also taking part in an Indian tender to deliver 126 fighteraircraft valued at $6.5 billion. See also the article in Global Politician: NuclearProliferation -- Options In A Perfect Storm by David J. Jonsson.

Beijingplans to build three aircraft carriers by 2016 and is putting the finishingtouches with Rosoboron export for the supply of 12 more SU-33s fighters, Ria Novosti reported. The contract can grow to 48 aircraft that would increase costs up to 2.5billion dollars.

This agreement would be the second largest signed by Moscow in the field of military technical cooperation only surpassed by the authorizedassembly, under license, of SU-30MKI fighters with India.

The Rise and Increased Strength Transnational Entities Utilizing Political Action and Potentially Weapons of Mass Destruction

Transnational entities such as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and their related organizations are gaining strength worldwide. They may achieve their goal of ultimately obtaining and ultimately using WMD. In some cases they are intimately linked with the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance. The mode of operation is to use terrorism, threats of terrorism, political action and participation in the "democratic process". Their goal is to create a totalitarian new world order. The actions are occurring worldwide as seen in the elections in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even in Spain.

Transnational Jihadist groups are operating worldwide. An example of such an organization is Hizb-ut-Tahrir -- Literally translated as "the party of liberation." Reference: Critical Mass: Hiib rrt-Tahrir al-Islami and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan by Don Rassler at Columbia University December 3, 2006.

HT aims to reestablish an Islamic caliphate, which would be modeled after the unified Islamic State established by the Prophet during the seventh century. The method, "the only way to reestablish the kind of Islamic society promulgated by the Prophet," al-Nabhani argued, "was to liberate Muslims from the thoughts, systems, and laws of kufr (nonbelievers) and replace the Judeo-Christian-dominated nation-state-system with a borderless ummah [community of believers] ruled by a new caliph." [Creating the Islamic kingdom of God on Earth.]

Founded as a more nationalistic alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood by a Palestinian judge named Sheikh Taquiddin al-Nabhani the group defines itself as a nonviolent political organization, but allegedly "denounces all existing political systems."

The party's general goal is to "resume the Islamic Way of Life and convey the Islamic call to the world. On a more specific level, however, HT aims to reestablish an HYPERLINK "http://www.salemthesoldier.us/jonsson_caliphate.html" Islamic caliphate, which would be modeled after the unified Islamic State established by the Prophet during the seventh century. The method, "the only way to reestablish the kind of Islamic society promulgated by the Prophet," al-Nabhani argued, "was to liberate Muslims from the thoughts, systems, and laws of kufr (nonbelievers) and replace the Judeo-Christian-dominated nation-state-system with a borderless ummah [community of believers] ruled by a new caliph." See also: Caliphatism - Establishing the "Islamic Kingdom of God on Earth by David J. Jonsson.

Steps for the Destruction of the Existing International Order

Although authors differ about HT's approach and commitment to a gradual and nonviolent process, it is clear that HT is dedicated to a radical goal: the destruction of the existing international order. In order to obtain their goal, the establishment of the caliphate and eventual Muslin rule, the leaders of HT believe they must follow three precise steps:

First, the group must build the strength of the party by "cultivating individuals" through recruitment, propaganda and the establishment of study groups.

Secondly, through more robust recruitment and encouraging "the ummah to embrace Islam" the group aims to covertly infiltrate government institutions and increase their efforts to create tension between society and those in power.

The third and final step is the establishment of an Islamic state based on Shuria, which would unite the Islamic world, enabling it to spark a worldwide Islamic revolution.

The London website about Hizb ut-Tahrir is. On March 19, HTB launches Iraq report-exposing myths of occupation & charting new way forward for the Middle East. The report is being widely circulated amongst thinkers, academics, journalists, columnists, politicians and think tanks.

"The report also argues that "any discussion of withdrawal from only Iraq will not serve to end the legacy of Western colonialism in the Middle East" because "for the long term stability of the region it is essential that foreign troops withdraw from the entire region, for their meddling has led to almost a century of tyrannical rule, brutal occupation and instability.""

"The report advocates the withdrawal of all foreign military personnel in Iraq and the wider region, an end to the West's support of dictatorial leaders in the region, allowing the Muslim world to decide its own political destiny without interference, freeing the region's vast energy reserves from the control of monarchies and multinationals, recognition of the illegality of the occupation of Palestine and an end to double standards over nuclear power in the region."

"In the light of this report, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain and the Muslims of Britain call for the return of the Islamic Caliphate which will end the cycle of foreign occupation, dictatorship and war which has ravaged a region that previously prospered for over a thousand years under the stability of Islamic governance."

According toHeritage Foundation in the article: Hizb ut-Tahrir: An Emerging Threat to U.S. Interests in Central Asia by Ariel Cohen, Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a "totalitarian organization, akin to a disciplined Marxist-Leninist party, in which internal dissent is neither encouraged nor tolerated." A candidate member undergoes two years of indoctrination, becoming a full member only after he "melts with the Party." Members belong to compartmentalized cells and know the identities of only the others in that cell. "When a critical mass of cells is achieved," writes Cohen, "according to its doctrine, Hizb may move to take over a country in preparation for the establishment of the Caliphate."

According to Zeyno Baran in the article Fighting the War of Ideas from the Foreign Affairs Journal November/December 2005:

HT is not itself a terrorist organization, but it can usefully be thought of as a conveyor belt for terrorists. It indoctrinates individuals with radical ideology, priming them for recruitment by more extreme organizations where they can take part in actual operations. By combining fascist rhetoric, Leninist strategy, and Western sloganeering with Wahhabi theology, HT has made itself into a very real and potent threat that is extremely difficult for liberal societies to counter.

"The original Columbus Free Press grew out of the anti-war movement on the campus of Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio in October 1970. Inspired by the activism against the Vietnam War and the senseless killings at Kent State, the underground paper was published for a 25-year tumultuous history (1970-1995). Like other underground alternative publications around the country, the Free Press went through many changes through the years. It served as the voice of the students in the early 70's, reporting on social justice issues such as sexism, racism, peace activism, corporate misdeeds, politics and the counterculture. Constantly struggling to survive on a shoestring budget, it encountered opposition from without and within. Internal ideological struggles were compounded, for example, when police arrested four of the editors in 1971 for "inciting riot.""

On March 7, 2005 they published an article Senator Byrd is correct to equate Bush with Hitler.

"Bush now holds some 2.2 million prisoners in the US gulag, the world's biggest prison population since the Nazis both by absolute number and by percentage of population. At least 800,000 Americans are held for victimless "drug" crimes, including marijuana. Thousands die each year from torture, rape, suicide and treatable disease. The system is designed to remove from the political process and, in many cases, exterminate people of color, alternative life style and political dissidence."

"Is this worthy of the Nazi label?"

"Fascism has long been clearly and simply defined as corporate control of the state, with strong totalitarian, militaristic, anti-feminist and anti-gay characteristics."

"Both Mussolini's Fascists and Hitler's Nazis used acts of terror and alleged terror to grab absolute power. Ranting at Bolshevism as the GOP now does against Islam, the Nazis used the burning of the Reichstag much as the GOP has capitalized on the terror attacks of September 11."

Senator Byrd's invocation of the Nazis to describe the Bush regime may be considered impolitic. But it's folly to ignore the important parallels.

"By all accounts American democracy is hanging by a thin thread which Bush/Rove is laboring mightily to cut."

"Sen. Robert Byrd is a conservative, uniquely learned man. When he equates Bush with Hitler, he speaks with great sadness and scholarship -- and must be heeded."

It is important to look at some of strikingly similar with banners displayed in the March along Edgware road to US Embassy, London, on 19 August 2006. See the photographs displayed in the article: HIZB UT-TAHRIR PROTEST AGAINST AMERICA moonbatmedia.com/hizb_ut_tahrir_190806/ Here we see the banners also proclaiming "Bush is the real Fascist", "America – Stop Your Warmongering", Neo-Conservatives are the New Fascists", "and Stop Israel's Terrorism" and "Cut all ties with Israel."

The Rhetoric For Political Gain Has Global Implications.

Just as the Hizb ut-Tahrir report advocates the withdrawal of all foreign military personnel in Iraq the US House of Representatives voted for the first time Friday to link funding for the Iraq war to a timeline for withdrawing combat troops by August 21, 2008, defying a veto threat from President George W. Bush. Are not these events are creating tension between society and those in power as called for in the strategy above?

On March 23, 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif said "The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not." "It's a historic moment for our party and a historic moment for our country," "If you want peace, stop funding this war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. Democratic Representative John Murtha, a passionate advocate of a US withdrawal from Iraq, said: "We are going to bring those troops home; we are going to start changing the direction of this great country."

Conflicts Arising Over the Control of Natural Resources – Energy, Raw Materials

Conflicts over the control of natural resources will be a driving force in the world geopolitical events in the future. The major powers will seek control at any cost. The disordered spaces in the world are where states have lost the monopoly of force needed to sustain order and the rule of law, where poverty and disease are endemic, centers of extremism, insurgency and political violence, those regions with young and mobile populations and finally in the series delineates rich concentrations of natural resources - oil, minerals and the rest.

And, yes, these troubled parts of the world are places upon which we, the inhabitants of ordered and prosperous countries depend for the raw materials to feed our economies. Unsurprisingly, the Middle East and Africa loom large.

The leading players seeking the natural resources include the United States, Europe, Russia, China and India. The events will result in potential wars and at the very least destabilizing the world.

The U.S. and Europe are reliant on imported energy and critical raw materials; we are living in a time of interdependence. The reliance on interdependence requires the defense of potential suppliers and most importantly the delivery systems and the transport lanes – sea lanes. The cost in monetary terms is huge, but the potential in terms of life may be even greater.

The companies seeking foreign supply of new sources are major investors in the countries that are potentially the greatest threat to the West, such as Iran. These investments will result in the countries using these funds to build nuclear weapons potentially to cause a nuclear holocaust.

We commonly only think in terms of oil and fuel for automobiles, but we are also importing energy in the form of the materials we commonly use such as plastics, aluminum, copper, steel and most importantly fertilizer. The U.S. currently imports over 50% of their ammonia--urea used to grow our crops. Increasing the production of ethanol jeopardizes both our energy and our food supply.

The U.S. also needs materials and metals, such as rare earths from China and titanium from Russia to maintain our weapons program. Unless we have plans for our security, we are at risk for defense. Shutting down a mining operation for Rare Earth in the U.S. because of an environmental concern can be just as devastating to security as the transfer of nuclear material to a rogue nation.

Similar conditions also exist for other basic materials.

The Disordered World Beyond

For 60 years the transatlantic alliance had been the pillar of European security, the bridge uniting the two great centers of Western civilization. Four years ago this month it nearly collapsed amid the diplomatic traumas that preceded the Iraq war. Diplomats on both sides say, and many even seem to believe, that the transatlantic partnership has been brought back from the brink, and is once again playing a central role in global security. They speak of progress in transatlantic efforts to defuse Iran's nuclear program, to bring a lasting peace to Lebanon, and to move the Balkans steadily toward a lasting stability.

Last month in Seville, Spain, NATO's defense ministers met to discuss an urgent request to commit more troops and equipment to the war in Afghanistan from General Bantz Craddock. The ministers heard a sobering assessment from Gen. Craddock of the stalled progress in Afghanistan and of the probability of a spring offensive against the United States and NATO forces by the Taliban and al Qaeda. The response, according to one official present, was negative. "They don't share our view of the scale and nature of the threat that Afghanistan represents," says a U.S. official who was there. This, remember, is not Iraq, which many European governments opposed, but Afghanistan, "the good war," the fight against the people who gave us September 11. This is the struggle that was prefigured when the NATO governments invoked for the first time in the alliance's history Article V, the collective defense clause, pledging to do what was necessary to defend their allies.

This gulf applies not just to Afghanistan. Consider European responses to the deteriorating situation in Russia. Last month Vladimir Putin marched into the very cockpit of the transatlantic alliance, the annual Munich Security Conference, and flipped a frosty Moscow finger at the assembled Europeans and Americans.

He attacked the United States as a bullying unilateralist that was tearing up international law. But just as the Europeans in the audience were nodding in approval, the Russian president turned on them too. He denounced NATO's expansion to Russia's borders and even found time to insult the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe, the stately body that has been aiding and promoting democratic reform in the former Soviet bloc, as a "vulgar" institution. The carefully structured world imagined by the west's leaders after the collapse of communism has proved a mirage.

The initial reaction, even from Europeans, was hostile. But on reflection, they seemed to decide that a supportive cringe would be more appropriate. A senior German official commented that there was much in what Putin had said that would resonate in Europe. The Sddeutsche Zeitung, a supposedly sober newspaper, blamed the United States for the new Cold War atmosphere, saying it had created "the opportunity for Putin to set himself up as the powerful voice of the growing number of countries and peoples who are stricken by doubt in the wisdom of Western policies." This, sadly, for all the continent's boastful claims of a new transatlantic partnership, is the true voice of modern Europe: a Europe that refuses to fight a war, to which it has pledged itself, against terrorists in Afghanistan; a Europe that declines to stand up to a Russian president who condemns its efforts to spread democracy even as his KGB friends eliminate their critics in European capitals. The transatlantic partnership may be back together again. Whether it stands for anything is much less clear.

Later the German government hosted celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the covenant that marked the birth of the institution that became the European Union. Chancellor Merkel and her 26 fellow heads of government used the occasion to launch the Berlin Declaration, a document intended to serve as the signposts for the future evolution of the E.U. The final details of the declaration are still under negotiation but the outlines are clear.

After the usual self-congratulatory preamble paying stirring tribute to the E.U.'s role in preserving the peace and generating prosperity over the last 50 years, the document will address the challenges of the future. What challenges are these? Terrorism, perhaps nuclear proliferation, the spread in Europe and the Middle East of Islamist ideology? Wrong on all counts.

On its 50th birthday, the E.U. will commit itself to fighting global warming, the economic dislocations caused by globalization and, most courageous of all, the institutional shortcomings of the union itself. This last means, by the way, at least in the German view, a resurrection of the European constitution, the blueprint for a nascent federal European state that was, you may remember, roundly rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands two years ago. Europeans will try hard to continue believing that they can huddle in their comfortable corner against the storms.

Opinion polls show that an overwhelming majority of European voters and a growing percentage in Americas believe "peace" comes before all else. Nothing wrong with that -- except when the inference is that Europe's eternal role is that of the concerned bystander; and sometimes even Americans are not even overly concerned. Thoughtful policymakers have been struck, and dismayed, by apparent public indifference towards the plight of Darfur. As depressing, is a visible weakening in the resolve of European governments and Americans to defeat the 'defeat of forces' threatening to destroy Western civilization.

The Islamic radicals we are fighting know they are far less wealthy and far less advanced in technology and weaponry than the United States. But they believe they will prevail in this war, as they did against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, by wearing us down and breaking our will. They believe America and the West are "the weak horse" -- soft, irresolute, and decadent. Al-Zarqawi once said Americans are the most cowardly of God's creatures,"

The war against global jihadism will be long, and we will experience success and setbacks along the way. The temptation of the West will be to grow impatient and, in the face of this long struggle, to grow weary. Some will demand a quick victory and, absent that, they will want to withdraw from the battle. But this is a war from which we cannot withdraw. As we saw on September 11th, there are no safe harbors in which to hide. Our enemies have declared war on us, and their hatreds cannot be sated. We will either defeat them, or they will come after us with the unsheathed sword.

They will discover otherwise. The west's interests as it navigates this rugged geopolitical terrain are as they have ever been: to export security, prosperity and, yes, liberal democratic values beyond its frontiers. On this, moral impulse, and hard headed interests are one. As it happens, the rising powers will discover over time that they have the same stake in an ordered world. But getting from here to there will not be an easy journey.

"With every passing year following the events of 9/11 the rise of Leftist/Marxist-Islamist Alliance has increased global instability. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients–far bigger in scale than those leading to World Wars I and II and the Gulf Wars of 1991 or 2003–were in place."

All of us would prefer years of repose to years of conflict. But history will not allow it. And so it once again rests with us to do what we have done in the past: it is our duty. We must win and we will win.

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement