The Caliphate and the WOT

Status
Not open for further replies.

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
Anyone recall how Osama Bin Laden cited the end of the Caliphate as a major greivance that led to his attacks on 9-11?

Ever wonder what the Caliphate was?

Here ya go.........But of course, this war isn't really real. It's all about oil and Bush and the Neocons and the Jews and all kinds of dark, mysterious geo-political machinations.

Anyone who thinks that Islamofacism has anything to do with this war, which really isn't real anyway, is just a silly-ghilly........:rolleyes:

No, we must not listen to the Islamofacists when they tell us why they hate us.

We must instead listen to our very own collection of "very smart people" who will tell the us the real, secret, conspiratorial reasons for the WOT.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.htm


from the May 10, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html

The Caliphate: One nation, under Allah, with 1.5 billion Muslims
By James Brandon | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
AMMAN, JORDAN - The three middle-aged men sitting in an Indian restaurant in Jordan's capital scarcely look like Islamic revolutionaries. They are smartly dressed in Western-style suits and sip thoughtfully from cans of Pepsi as they share their plan to reshape the Muslim world.

"[President] Bush says that we want to enslave people and oppress their freedom of speech," says Abu Abdullah, a senior member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation. "But we want to free all people from being slaves of men and make them slaves of Allah."

Hizb ut-Tahrir says that Muslims should abolish national boundaries within the Islamic world and return to a single Islamic state, known as "the Caliphate," that would stretch from Indonesia to Morocco and contain more than 1.5 billion people.

It's a simple and seductive idea that analysts believe may someday allow the group to rival existing Islamic movements, topple the rulers of Middle Eastern nations, and undermine those seeking to reconcile democracy and Islam and build bridges between East and West.

"A few years ago people laughed at them," says Zeyno Baran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the leading expert on Hizb ut-Tahrir. "But now that [Osama] bin Laden, [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi, and other Islamic groups are saying they want to recreate the Caliphate, people are taking them seriously."

Even more moderate Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt pay lip-service to the ideal of reestablishing the Caliphate, leaving less ideological space for Muslims who want to move toward Western models of democracy.

"The Caliphate is a rallying point between the radicals and the more moderate Islamists," says Stephen Ulph, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation. "The idea of a government based on the Caliphate has a historical pedigree and Islamic legitimacy that Western systems of government by their very nature do not have."

But unlike Al Qaeda, Hizb ut-Tahrir believes it can recreate the Caliphate peacefully. Its activists aim to pursuade Muslim political and military leaders that reestablishing the Caliphate is their Islamic duty. Once these leaders invite Hizb ut-Tahrir to take power - effectively staging a military coup - the party would then repeat the process in other countries before linking them up to form a revived Caliphate.

"We spread our ideas by addressing people directly," says Abdullah Shakr, a fluent English-speaker, who, like all three men, spent time in Jordanian jails for membership in the party. "We don't care if the government knows about us, but ... we try not to catch their attention."

The party was founded in Jerusalem in 1953 by a Palestinian judge, Sheikh Taqiuddin Al-Nabhani. He taught that the Muslim world had grown poor and weak ever since the Caliphate was abolished by Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk in 1924.

The Caliphate was created after the death of Islam's founder Muhammad in 632 AD. During the following centuries the Caliphate expanded Islam's territories by conquest and treaty to cover most of the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa. As the Ottoman Turks lost ground to the West, they increasingly donned the cloak of the Caliphate. In the 1920s, Muslims throughout the British empire, particularly in India, used the restoration of the Caliphate as an anti-colonial rallying point. "People look back on the Caliphate and see its success as a poor reflection on the condition of the Muslim world today," says Mr. Ulph.

Hizb ut-Tahrir promises that a revived Caliphate will end corruption and bring prosperity - though the group doesn't say how. It will let Muslims challenge, and ultimately conquer, the West, its followers say.

"The Muslim world has resources like oil but it lacks the leadership that will rule us by Islamic law and make this jihad that the whole world is afraid of," says Shakr, a Jordanian member of the group, who says the success of the Caliphate will also encourage more converts to Islam - eventually making the whole world Islamic.

Hizb ut-Tahrir's modern leader is a Jordanian known as Emir Atta Abu Rashta. He lives in a secret location in the Middle East and communicates mainly through the Internet. The party is illegal in all Arab countries as well as Germany. Britain mooted banning the group after last year's London bombings. Ms. Baran wrote in the November issue of Foreign Affairs that the attacks were carried out by members of a Hizb ut-Tahrir splinter group. The British government has not formally accused Hizb ut-Tahrir or Hizb ut-Tahrir splinter groups of involvement. Hizb ut-Tahrir's British branch has condemned both the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks. [Editor's note: Due to an editing error, the original version did not cite Baran or include Hizb ut-Tahrir's condemnation.]

Hizb ut-Tahrir's critics rarely see the organization as a direct threat, however.

"Many people see Hizb ut-Tahrir's aims as utterly unrealistic," says Nadim Shehadi, a Middle East analyst at Chatham House. "Even their understanding of the Caliphate as a strong, powerful state is questionable. Historically the Caliphate only worked because it was very loose and extremely decentralized."

Many analysts say that real danger is that the group radicalizes its followers who may subsequently graduate into militancy.

"People who join won't necessarily end up as violent jihadists," says Shiv Malik, a journalist. "But Hizb ut-Tahrir can provide [them with an] ideological backbone."

Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a mass movement yet, but analysts warn the group has a growing prominence among educated professionals in Europe and the Middle East.

"In Europe they tell Muslims that they have to create parallel societies and that they should not follow European laws," says Ms. Baran. "If this happens it will impossible for people like me to argue that Islam can be democratic."

Baran estimates the group has tens of thousands of followers in Central Asia. "They're stronger in places where people know less about Islam and can't read the Koran in Arabic," she says. "They're not as popular in the Middle East because they don't get involved in the Palestinian cause."

Hizb ut-Tahrir takes a more gradual, long-term strategy for spreading the territory under Muslim rule.

"Islam obliges Muslims to possess power so that they can intimidate - I would not say terrorize - the enemies of Islam," says Abu Mohammed, a Hizb ut-Tahrir activist. "In the beginning, the Caliphate would strengthen itself internally and it wouldn't initiate jihad."

"But after that we would carry Islam as an intellectual call to all the world," says Abu Mohammed, a pseudonym. "And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we'll ask them to be ruled by Islam."

And after that? Abu Mohammed pauses and fiddles with his Pepsi before replying.

"And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam," he says, smiling. "This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
 
Great post thanks, I wish more people realized what we are facing.

"And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam," he says, smiling. "This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light."
 
Disinformation. We all know the reason they hate us is they grew up in disfunctional families under abusive fathers. Islamofascists are trying to recreate an ideal father with the Caliphate. If we could just get the islamofascist leadership to sit for intensive therapy and life coaching maybe we could stop all this unpleasantness :banghead:
 
It's a simple and seductive idea that analysts believe may someday allow the group to rival existing Islamic movements, topple the rulers of Middle Eastern nations, and undermine those seeking to reconcile democracy and Islam and build bridges between East and West.

And we're busy dismantling the Baath Party, who would be busy undermining these clowns and tossing them into meat grinders whenever they reared their ugly heads in their territory. Boy are we smart!

"And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam," he says, smiling. "This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light."

The Caliphate failed at the same task before. The next time will be no different, except I doubt it will be the French stopping them cold next time. The Serbs will probably rise to the occasion again, if we don't bomb the crap out of them (another brilliant foreign policy move right along with getting rid of Sadaam).

Taken posthumously or not, the maadi's skull is still an inkwell somewhere in Britain IIRC. Let those folks get fed up with this, and in touch with their inner Anglo/Geat/Pict, and they'll have a great collection of them before long. Same for most of Europe. The Islamist fundies have made a terrible strategic error not waiting until they were 25% or more of western populations before starting this holy-war crapola. This new-Caliphate pipe-dream is just that.
 
Fortunately, the restoration of the Caliphate, although often proposed, has always foundered on the vexed issue of who gets to be the next Caliph. Seems everyone wants to be the Chief, and no-one wants to be the Indians.

:rolleyes:
 
But unlike Al Qaeda, Hizb ut-Tahrir believes it can recreate the Caliphate peacefully. Its activists aim to pursuade Muslim political and military leaders that reestablishing the Caliphate is their Islamic duty.

Peacefully? Would that include the 750 million women who will have to skulk back into the shadows?

Slaves of Allah: well, that just about says it, I think. Any questions? Sorry, no questions allowed, just testing you.

I think if Islam "wins," it will be as a post-apocalyptic faith in which, as the old phrase goes, the living will envy the dead, and everyone will want peace at any price, by any means, in any guise.
 
But of course, this war isn't really real. It's all about oil and Bush and the Neocons and the Jews and all kinds of dark, mysterious geo-political machinations.

Hillbilly, "I love you, man." And, when I say that, I mean that your opinions are extremely important in my manner of thought and where I go to verify my sources.

But I find it difficult to believe that, even you -- a proponent of offensive military discourse in an Admiral Halsey-esque fashion -- do not recognize that the American public was led down the primrose path to where we are.

That being said: we're stuck with the situation.

"I just do not like it." (Where we are.)

"I am open to ANY information available." Such is the mark of a true intellect.

"I'm sure you understand."
 
Dont forget our Friends the Saudis also have a dream of someday becoming a Caliphate for Islam :what: The land that gave you Wahhabism......

That being said: we're stuck with the situation.
wasnt there some guy named Colin in the White House saying if you let the bull in the China Shop........even he drank the poison koolaid.

We are stuck like Chuck in a war Osama wanted. The Russians had been defeated by jihadists in Afghanistan. So if the Jihadists drive the US out of Iraq and democracy fails its not gonna be a good day for western civilization. So we cant afford to leave. Its Radical Islam vs Western Civilization.

Just say no to Dhimmi

Not all of Islam are the bad guys...The Guys in Turkey have at least founded a secular government if not a perfect democracy. Some muslims want to live life and raise thier kids. However, there are quite a few who think that individual rights dont mix with Islam so western civilization has to go...

And for those out you who feel that Islam everywhere is tolerant and loving grab a Bible and a airline ticket to Saudi, find a street corner and spead the "Good News" your efforts will be rewarded shortly.

In fact Afghanistan had the sticky wicket of a man folks there wanted to give a death sentence to for becoming a Chrisitnan convert....feel the love and tolerance.
 
Dont forget our Friends the Saudis also have a dream of someday becoming a Caliphate for Islam The land that gave you Wahhabism......

Then just say it! It is NOT that hard.

If such is, truly, our government's singular goal in determining military events: then "go there."

It is not that I am inherently opposed to our (US of A) current breadth of activities throughout the world, but I am singularly miffed at our ability to HONESTLY EXPLAIN such.

Although not my favorite, Patton indicated that the (not direct quote) "Huns were the enemy" and he went after them.

I look for such from my government, not politicization of the "truth."

If the "truth" is different: TELL ME NOW.
 
Right now, Islam is in the middle of a reformation, with various elements reforming themselves so that a new beast rises from the old.

Often things are in one of two phases. Of transition, and expansion. Right now, Islam is doing both. The problem is, Islam's reformation isn't to be by necessity like the West's Christian Reformation (which led to democratic societies, and a rule of law), probably mainly bc these reforms were all caused by a heavy handed Catholic Church.

Islam's reformation is fighting in several catagories.

#1: Sunni vs Shi'a

#2: Those who have Western influence Democratic society and women's rights vs. Those that wish to return to real Islam.

While Sunni vs. Shi'a is old, #2 is new. And unfortunately, the extremists (religiously) weren't in Iraq (which we invaded), but in Saudi Arabia (which we lick the feet of) and have oil wealth they can use to spread their message of hate.
 
The US gov't just needs to come right out and declare war on Radical Islam, wherever it rears its head. It makes no sense to piddle around with this pc WOT when we should be hunting down and killing all that advocate that flavor of islam (that openly threatens us).

Whack Iran first, and then turn the guns towards the saudis and see if they've had a change of heart.

Why we tolerate the S*$# the palestinians pull is also beyond me.
 
Ezekiel, I understand.

We just agree to disagree on some points.

By being led down the "primrose path" I assume you mean Iraq

That may be the case. I'll admit that you might be right on that count.

But I see Iraq as just a secondary front in World War IV against Islamofacism, which I think has been underway for about the past 20 years, only that we just failed to notice that fact until 9-11.

I think Iraq is about like the invasion of Italy in World War II. I think that Iraq, for all sorts of reasons, was just part of the package deal with WWIV.

But the problem is that since Vietnam, the US can't just go to war anymore.

Realities have to be "packaged" and subjected to "polling groups" and spun and all the other slimy tactics of political maneuvering in the information age.

It makes me ill, too.

It makes me ill to hear Bush say, over and over, that Islam means peace, when the true, literal translation of the word means submission.

I think that Saudi Arabia is a big problem. It's the home of those who fund Wahabbism. Most of the money that pays for Madrassas in Pakistan and other places, where Wahhabist fundamentalism is taught, comes from Saudi.

But it will not be the subject of any military action for a whole set of reasons.

1) It is the land of Mecca. Any Western action against Saudi Arabia would bring every single Muslim in the world into full jihad mode. Even if Saddam Hussein had invaded Saudi back in 1991 like everyone, especially the Saudis, thought he was about to, it would not provoke the same world-wide reaction of an infidel invasion of the Islamic Holy Land. Saddam would have just been another Muslim invading. But infidels invading Saudi would instantly bring every single Muslim in the world to a full jihad.

2) The corrupt, decadent House of Saud is actually about half on our side. If not on our side, at least against the Wahhibists. Yes, they are corrupt and dirty and awful, but at least half of them are hard core against the Wahhibists, and are thus useful allies. Remember, we had to ally with the Soviet Union, which actually murdered more civilians than Nazi Germany ever did, but only because we had to in order to corral the Nazi threat.

Yes, "working with" the Saudis means dirty, slimy, awful deals. But at least some of them recognize the threat of the Wahhabists, because once the Wahhabists get power, there go the millionaire playboy weekends in Dubai or Paris.

The situation sucks, Ezekiel. I agree.

The situations we faced in World War II also all sucked.

But I also think that lots of Americans do not realize what we're really facing here.


hillbilly
 
The fundamental problem is that as a culture we have mostly forgotten the need for violence. There is just violence and unjust violence. Somehow the distinction between the two has been washed away after decades of leftist feel-good PC multicultural nonsense.

As a society, we will either remember our inner Charles Martel, or simply perish in disgrace.
 
What are the odds of them pulling it off? By my reckoning, it's gotta be a million to 1.

Way more, I should think. As noted upthread, too many Chiefs, not enough Indians. There's no one person they would all willingly follow, and I don't think the concept of elections is really compatible with the goal.

It's just going to be a bloody, pointless struggle that'll go on for decades, if not centuries. We in the west finally outgrew that (mostly), but these folks might get to destroy themselves, and us, first...
 
What are the odds of them pulling it off? By my reckoning, it's gotta be a million to 1.
What were the odds that an arab merchant suffereing from bean dreams would found a religion that would turn the Med into its bathtub and be an existential threat to Western Civilization for a millenium?

Determination and a club beats high-tech wizardry and an unwillingness to fight.
 
I think Iraq is about like the invasion of Italy in World War II.

That is an interesting and well thought out theory: and one I had not managed to consider.

My only retort is to say something that I believe to be viable, but it is not a condemnation of your original point.

"Italy was completely screwed up [then and prior to invasion] to begin with and had zero ability to effectively harm the continental United States. We lost all sorts of casualties in a place that could have, effectively, been left to wither on the vine with the defeat of Hitler and fascism [of the day] in general." (Sort of like Truk, which actually had MORE offensive firepower and national [Japanese] support then Italy could bring to bear on US troops during the early portion of the European theater.)

Personally, I think an effective offensive operation -- some years ago -- against Osama and has immediate minions would have negated the need for Iraq to be a concern, allowing them [Iraq] to become a non-factor via their ongoing bumbling.

That being said, if one accepts that 100% of all Islamic-types exist merely to kill infidels, the point is moot.

"I'm just not prepared to hang my hat on that yet."
 
Ezekiel, yes, that's pretty much how I see Iraq.

There are all sorts of things that should've, would've, could've prevented a required second invasion of Iraq.

Oh, say like taking care of Saddam the FIRST TIME we invaded Iraq back in 1991.

Only Bush Sr. was still haunted by the spector of Vietnam, and didn't

We even gave Saddam back his friggin' assault helicopters which he later used to massacre the Shias in the southern marshes.

Can you imagine that? We gave Saddam Friggin' Hussein his friggin' assault helicopters back immediately after the Gulf War ended.

Talk about US military decisions being affected by idiotic political correctness.:uhoh:

No, no, we're not imperialists....here's how we'll prove we're not imperialists......here, evil dictator, have your assault helicopters back! We'll even gas them up for ya!!!!

Yes, Ezekiel, we should've, would've, could've taken Osama seriously and taken his sorry ass out years ago. Slick Willy Clinton had chance after chance after chance to do just that. Only he didn't.

So Osama hits us for years and years with impunity.

Al Qaeda trained the RPG gunners who shot down the Blackhawks in Somalia, and Osama specifically cited the US pullout from Somalia as proof that American soldiers and the American people were little weenies who would run away once you hit them one good shot in the nose.

Osama uses the "Blackhawk Down" episode as a piece of recruiting propaganda for his global jihad. Only we're too myopic and self-absorbed to notice. And he blows up our ships and our embassies and our people, but we don't notice.

And don't forget the FIRST TIME they tried to take out the WTC with truck bombs. There are even Iraqi connections to that first mission to level the Twin Towers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98373,00.html

And then eventually comes 9-11, and we're forced to take Osama and Islamic terror seriously for once. We realize we're at war, and have been at war for years and years and years.

But there is still that un-lanced boil on our ass..... Saddam.

He's not really an Islamic fundamentalist wacko. But he is close enough to help them and aid them. (like Mussolini, a type of fascist, nothing near as dangerous as Hitler, but definitely part of the package deal)

And Saddam does have a proven, undeniable track record of having and using WMDs. Just ask those 5,000 Kurds he gassed to death....Oh wait, you can't ask them, because they were all gassed to death....:rolleyes:

You can't effectively wage a war against radical Islamofascism and just leave Saddam out there. Everybody believed he still had WMDs. He had 13 months worth of warning to hide them, move them to Syria, etc.

There has been a news report (not publicized much) that all of Saddam's generals thought he still had WMDs and were all horrified and shocked to learn on the night the US invasion started that he'd moved them all out of the country. The generals were counting on those WMDs to use against the Americans, even issued their own troops chemical suits, but found out that Saddam had moved their stockpiles out the country.

Yes, Ezekiel, I agree that there were mistakes made with Iraq and Osama.

There are with every war.

If Yamamato sends his final planned wave against Pearl Harbor and gets the fuel reserves....if a certain tank doesn't get bogged down on the road through Holland in Operation Market Garden...If a certain general on Lee's staff doesn't drop that bundle of cigars wrapped with Lee's battle plan......if, if, if, would've, could've, should've......

Two examples from history......

How many Americans died needlessly in the failed Hurtgen Forest campaign in Germany in 1945?

How many US troops died needlessly in the failed Red River campaign through southern Arkansas late in the Civil War?

Both campaigns were miserable, compete, total, utter failures. They were horribly controversial when they happened. Only nobody talks about them or thinks about them now, because of the bigger results that overshadow them.

Even while mistakes have been made, I do NOT think that the Iraq war is a miserable failure. Iraq has had elections faster than either Germany or Japan did after WWII.

Hell, Iraq had its own elections faster than my home state of Arkansas had its first, free elections when it was still occupied enemy territory in the late
1860s.

Yes, there are problems. There are in every war.

But really think that so many Americans fail to recognize the determination and venom and hate of the enemy, and fail to realize why they are trying so hard to kill us, and so many Americans get so wrapped-up in Dubya-hating that they fail to see the wider implications of a US failure in Iraq.

And finally, I do not for one second think that 100% of all Muslims want to kill all us infidels.

But enough of them DO think that way to make it a really bad situation.

What percentage of Germans in WWII were true, fanatical, zealous Nazis????

What percentage of Japanese were true, fanatical, zealous Imperial militarists????

In neither case was it any where close to 100%. In neither case was it probably even a simple majority....... Heck, even during the Cold War, only about 6% of Soviets were actually members of the Communist Party.

Of course I don't think that all Muslims are jihadis bent on killing infidels.

But enough of them are to cause real problems.

And you cannot always tell who is a problem and who isn't.

I think it all sucks. But I also think that too many Americans are so spoiled, soft, and ignorant of history that they fail to realize what's at stake here. (Of course, Ezekiel, I am decidedly excepting you from that last category).

This is situation sucks, and will continue to suck for years. I just hope we're tough enough of a country to do what needs to be done until it doesn't suck so much.

hillbilly
 
And finally, I do not for one second think that 100% of all Muslims want to kill all us infidels.

"I didn't mean to imply such was your point of view." :)

But a "kill 'em all" mentality is certainly what is being espoused in many circles: to our international detriment.

Now, whether that is more or less detrimental then not trying to kill some in militarily "indirect" areas is quite debatable.

"Good points."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top