Calmeyer Lawyer 1s
Web Design

Calmeyer’s Legacy

Hans Calmeyer Righteous Gentile 1903-1972

“The Dutch Schindler”

 Lawyer for Life

The Clash

Why Save a Life ?

The Clash of Civilizations is not ultimately a military clash but a social and cultural clash, and specifically one of Law. Law is set by the dominant culture. Dominance is not only achieved by force and intimidation. In Democracies, it can be achieved by multitudes in largely peaceful ways, through conversions of the people or simply by winning the demographic competition for numbers. The survival of the fittest results from a battle of strength and of will. The West is beginning to lose the battle on all fronts, and the slow infiltration of Sharia Law is part of the game. To the extent Sharia takes hold against Western Law, even in part, the cultural clash is joined.

AlbrechtAltdorfer-The-Battle-of-Ale

Law is critically important to the maintenance of culture. There is a trend, reinforced by Obama and Kagan and others, to quietly bring the U.S. under  international rule via a technique called "norming"  to International Law. Ironic that Calmeyer worked in Den Haag, the supposed seat of international law, now increasingly an instrument to dilute existing US national laws. This attempt to change American Law to some other common denominator includes attempts to introduce elements (and geographically distinct) of Sharia Law where cultures mix. America was built on a melting pot into American Culture, not a melting of the American Culture and “system of laws” to create some new unrecognizable and inconsistent amalgam. The Clash of Civilizations IS a clash of Laws.

 THE THIRD WAVE   by Wallace Edward Brand

Summary

The First Wave was begun by Muhammed and went on for over half a millennium. It created an Islamic Empire that extended from Arabia through a large part of Africa, much of Central Asia, east into Iran. The Second Wave, begun in the 14th century by a warlord, Osman Bey, known as the Ottoman, threatened to overwhelm all of Europe. The Muslims were halted in the 17th Century at the gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Empire was still vast and it continued to own all of the Middle East until the first World War, when the area was divided up -- 99% going to the Muslims, 1% to the Jews. In this essay, we discuss the Third Wave of Islamic aggression, which is still in its early stages.

"In the eyes of a fanatical and resolute minority of Muslims, the third wave of attack on Europe has clearly begun. We should not delude ourselves as to what it is and what it means. This time it is taking different forms -- two in particular, terror and migration." This is what we have been told by Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Middle East historians.[1] The United States is an additional target of this third wave; here the jihad employs terror, migration and stealth.[2] The facts are set forth below. They show that our ally Israel is the US's first line of defense in our common struggle to protect Western Civilization from a new period of Dark Ages.

 The cause of the current wave of terrorism, according to the political left and the political right

Efraim Karsh, Professor and head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London tells us[3] that "The 9/11 attacks have inspired two diametrically opposed interpretations regarding their "root causes". These can be referred to as the "What is past is prologue camp" and the "Blame America first camp", sometimes also referred to as the "chickens coming home to roost" camp by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, former mentor of President Obama. By and large the right has accepted the "past is prologue" explanation and the left, the "chickens coming home to roost."

Defining the 'Past is Prologue' camp

Karsh characterizes it this way:

 According to the political right, the attacks were the latest salvo in the millenarian "clash of civilizations" between the worlds of Islam and Christendom, a violent backlash by a deeply frustrated civilization reluctant to come to terms with its long-standing decline. "For many centuries Islam was the greatest civilization on earth -- the richest, the most powerful, the most creative in every significant field of human endeavor" wrote a prominent exponent of this view. "And then everything changed, and Muslims, instead of invading and dominating Christendom, were invaded and dominated by Christian powers. The resulting frustration and anger at what seemed to them a reversal of both natural and divine law have been growing for centuries, and have reached a climax in our own time." [4] This climax was seeded by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by Hassan al Banna in 1928 and nurtured by Sayeed Qutb Sheik Abdullah Azzam and and in Jamaat-e-Islamia in Pakistan and Indonesia by Maulana Maududi, and by other philosophers of this view including Ayatollah Ruholleh Khomeini in Iran. It came to fruition with the financing from OPEC petrodollars starting in 1970, but earlier in Palestine. Al-Qaeda is but one of the many offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood around the world. [5]

The 'Blame-America-First' camp : "chickens coming home to roost".

Karsh explains this view this way:

 "Not so, argues a vast cohort of academics, journalists, writers, and retired diplomats. It is our fault. The attacks were a misguided, if not wholly inexplicable, response to America's arrogant and self-serving foreign policy by a fringe extremist group, whose violent interpretation of Islam has little to do with the actual spirit and teachings of the religion. Not only does Islam specifically forbid the massacre of innocent civilians but the evocation as a jihad in the context of 9/11 makes a travesty of this concept, which means first and foremost an inner quest for personal self improvement and not a holy war as is widely believed."

"Muslims have never nurtured dreams of world conquest," runs a typical argument in this vein. "They had no designs on Europe, even though Europeans imagined that they did. Once Muslim rule had been established in Spain, it was recognized that the empire could not expand indefinitely" [6]

"In al Qaeda's statements directed at European or American audiences, Islamists maintain that the terrorism they direct against the West is merely reciprocal treatment for decades of Western and Israeli oppression. Yet in writings directed to their fellow Muslims, this animus is presented, not as a reaction to military or political provocation, but as a product of religious obligation" no matter what changes the US makes in its foreign policy. [7]

This suggests that Bin Laden's attribution is taqqiyya (dissimulation) to advance the cause of Islam, as is permitted and even required by the Koran.

Previous Islamic Empires, Previous Islamic Jihads

There were actually two Islamic Empires, the result of the first two waves of jihad or "holy war". These are chronicled in Karsh's book, Islamic Imperialism, a history.[8] You can find the details of these waves of aggression in a recent book, The Legacy of Jihad,[9] written by a Rhode Island physician and author of many commentaries on Islam. Dr. Bostom tells you how Islam expanded and what happened to non-muslims in conquered areas.

You will find that Islamic jihad is a grisly campaign against non-Muslims to satisfy Mohammed's goal -- forcing the "one true faith" on the entire world or to collect tribute in the form of a poll tax, jizya, from monotheists who would not accept Islam. But if they payjizya, they are treated as second class citizens called "dhimmis". Islam, as practiced in the 7th through the 19th century was a faith bent upon the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.

Subjugated monotheists, "People of the Book" such as Christians or Jews, were given three choices, 1. convert to Islam, or 2. accept second class citizenship, pay a discriminatory tax and sometimes accept demeaning obligations, or 3. die. Polytheistic peoples were offered only the last choice.

In Legacy of Jihad Bostom describes how at the very outset of Islam, the Jewish Qurayzah tribe was purported to have aided the forces of Muhammad's enemies and how they were subsequently isolated and besieged. After their surrender some six to nine hundred Jewish men were beheaded in front of Muhammad and their decapitated bodies buried in trenches. The young Jewish males, women, and children were sold into slavery and their property and land were confiscated.

Throughout the first and second waves of jihad, non-Muslims were  discriminated against, made slaves, raped and then converted to Islam or became second class citizens. There was no converting back. Apostasy  resulted in death.

In an insatiable thirst for slaves and women for harems (places  of sexual slavery) Islam declared Jihads deep into Africa and Europe,  depopulating Eastern Europe and the coast of Africa. Jihad campaigns  over 1300 years against non-Muslims were characterized by massacre,  enslavement, and pillage. You are confronted with how such military  conquests have subdued millions of indigenous peoples and expropriated  vast expanses of land.

One reviewer of Bostom's history said: Islam needs to be  understood for what it is by head-in-the-sand westerners and, besides  analysis and understanding, western civilization certainly needs to  identify a lasting cure for this violent, self-absorbed, hate-filled,  psychotic plague before more damage is done.

 Death, murder, rape plunder and misery were the lot of infidels  who were on the receiving end of jihad. Muslim conquests were not the  peaceful transitions of willing converts but conquest by the sword.  Modern day Jihad is not an isolated incident, but a tradition going back 1300 years.

Mawlana Maududi, in his monograph, Jihad in Islam, [10]  has written in unequivocal terms that the sole objective of Islam is to  overthrow any un-Islamic political system anywhere in the world and  replace it by an Islamic system with Shar'ia law. To do so, Muslims  (belonging to the Party of Allah) must use physical force whenever  necessary to quickly attain this objective and keep the application of  force forever.

In 1942 Ayatollah Ruholleh Khomeini mocked the notion that Islam is a religion of peace:

 "...Islam's jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation,  plunder, repression and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic]  conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They  care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left  homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to  conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be  conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For  they shall live under [God's Law] . . . .
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to [the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists that to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!" [11]

The religion of Islam spread poverty, war, slavery, tyranny,  illiteracy and backwardness through brutal military force, and brought  slavery and marginalization for non-Muslims to all regions that this  totalitarian religion conquered. [12]

Are the terror attacks we are now seeing a "Third Wave"?

The First Wave

The first wave commenced in the time of Muhammad in the 7th Century and lasted until about the 13th Century. Military colonies were established in the 9th Century and the rate of expansion slowed. From the Arabian Peninsula, the first Islamic Empire extended west and included large areas of Northern Africa (the Maghreb) and southern Spain. To the east it included Iran, and large parts of Central Asia. The decline of this first Islamic empire is described in detail by Efraim Karsh[13]. The invasion of the Mongols caused the collapse of the first Islamic Empire; it was already in decline and therefore easy prey. The Mongol invaders drove Turkish tribes to Anatolia. These Islamic Turkish tribes that were fleeing the Mongols settled in what is now Turkey. The Mongols looted and murdered, but couldn't govern. They soon fell into decline.

The Second Wave

The Anatolians were led by warlord Osman Bey. He would become  known as Ottoman. In the 14th Century Ottoman led his warriors to  commence the second Islamic Empire. By the late 18th Century the Ottoman Empire had extended further north into Eastern Europe -- to the gates  of Vienna by 1683 -- but in the south had lost Spain, Iran, and a large  portion of Arabia. Then there was another decline from 1826 to 1878 as  the faith-based society of Islam fell behind the Western Civilization.  In the West reason had triumphed over faith and there were decisive  advances in science and engineering and their implementation.

Particularly significant to the Islamic decline were the advances in weapons adopted by the Western military. In 1878 Napoleon led an  expedition into Egypt and conquered it. No Muslim response forced him  out. Only Horatio Nelson and the British Navy. From that time on the  West was the moving force in the Middle East until WWI when the Ottoman  Empire made the mistake of entering the war on the side of Germany.  Prior to WWI, the Muslims could influence affairs in the Middle East  only by pitting one Western country or group against another.

Following the war, the victorious Allies dismembered the Ottoman Empire territories in the Middle East and the Mahgreb and formed 21 states with political rights granted to Arabs and Muslims out of 99% of the area and then a 22nd state from 76% of Palestine whose political rights were being held in trust for a Jewish Homeland.

Although the Second Islamic Empire had started its decline years  earlier, in 1776, it still had enough power to exact tribute from the  newborn United States, tribute rising to 20% of its revenues by 1800 to  protect its merchant shipping in the Mediterranean from being raided.  This tribute was required by the Muslim pirates of Tripoli to protect US sailors from being kidnapped and ransomed or sold into slavery and any  women passengers sold to harems..[14]

In the US from 1778 until 1815 there was an internal political  struggle very similar to that going on now between the appeasers and  those who wanted to fight the Islamic extortionists. "Millions for  defense but not one cent for tribute " was the rallying cry until the  pro war faction won and the US Marines took Tripoli.

Long before 1900 the Ottoman Empire had became known as "the sick man of Europe". In WWI it entered the war on the side of the Germans. When it lost, the Allies divided the Empire except for Turkey and created 21 Muslim states out of 99% of it. Palestine comprised 1% of the former Ottoman Empire.

At the 1920 Conference in San Remo, the Allies initially agreed  that political rights to Palestine would be held in trust for a national homeland for the Jews by the British in accordance by with the British  policy embodied in the Balfour Declaration to administer it until the  Jews would be able to exercise sovereignty. When they did exercise  sovereignty, a limitation prohibited the Jews from any action that would impair the civil or religious rights of the non-Jews. 

The United States was not a part of the League of Nations  setting up the British Mandate, the US Congress having failed to approve President Wilson's recommendation for the membership of the US in that  organization. However a joint Resolution of the US Congress in 1922  approved the policy of the Balfour Declaration designating Palestine as a national homeland for the Jews.[15] The British Mandate or trusteeship  to carry out the policy was cemented into both British and American  Treaty Law by the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 prohibiting the  Mandatory Power from ceding Palestine land to any Foreign Power.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was incorporated as Article 95 of the 1920 Treaty of Sevres. Article 95 directly transferred Ottoman Empire sovereignty over Palestine to England in trust for the Jews, but preserved the religious and civil rights of the indigenous Arabs and Muslims when the Jews ultimately exercised sovereignty. The Ottoman Empire had held such sovereignty undisputed for 400 years. The Treaty of Sevres was modified by the Treaty of Lausanne, but the modifications did not affect the transfers of sovereignty in the Middle East and the Mahgreb. However, soon after, in 1922, a 22nd Arab state, "Transjordan", later "Jordan", was created by the British in the 76% of Palestine that lay east of the Jordan River. In forming the 22nd state, now called Jordan, the British Mandate gave 76% of that 1% that was to belong to the Jews to the Arab Hashemite Tribe leaving 24% of Palestine to be disposed of at a later time.

By 1948 the League of Nations was gone, replaced by the United  Nations that tried to dispose of the remainder. The UN was bound by its  Article 80 to preserve the territorial allocations of the former League  of Nations. In 1948 the UN purported to give some 6% of Palestine  (0.06% of the surrendered lands of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East and North Africa) to the Jews, mostly desert, and offered all of the  rest, except Jerusalem to the local Arabs. Jerusalem, which had had  Jews as its majority population as early as 1864, was intended by the UN to be internationalized.

The Arabs did not accept their share -- they chose to commence a  war against the nascent Jewish state. The video "What Really Happened"  shows some of that history.[16]

Arab-Israeli Wars As Preface To The Third Wave

The Arab wars against Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973 were really a  preface to the Islamic third wave of global conquest. Contrary to  popular belief, in Palestine the religious motive of Jihad, later  cleverly disguised as secular nationalism by intervention of the Soviet  Union starting in 1964, has always been the driver of the Arab-Israeli  conflict.

Even history revisionist Benny Morris, a historian of the  Arab-Israeli conflict considered by many to be an apologist for the  Arabs, correctly argues that it was religion rather than nationalism  that inspired the 1948 invasion of Israel. He considers it a mistake to  ignore the religious rhetoric that accompanied the 1948 assault by Arab  armies. "The 1948 War, from the Arabs' perspective," he writes, "was a  war of religion as much as, if not more than, a nationalist war over  territory."[17]

The Muslim Brotherhood, the mufti of Egypt, Egypt's King Farouk,  King 'Abdullah of Transjordan, and many others spoke of a holy war, a  jihad against the Jews. It was not a nationalist struggle then, nor is  it today. The "[violence] did not emerge only from 'modern' nationalist  passions; it also drew on powerful religious wellsprings. Nothing, it  seemed, could mobilize the Palestinian Arab masses for action more  readily than Muslim religious rhetoric and symbols."

 Little has changed since the 1940s. With the rise of radical Islam and the expansion of violent recourse, Arab irredentism has continued to have a religious focus, sometimes on "Palestine" and sometimes on the umma, the abstract nation of all Muslims. And it is as Muslims more than as Arabs (or Iranians or Afghans) that today's leading enemies of Israel view the conflict.[18] It is undisputed that it is religion rather than secular nationalism that motivates Hamas in Gaza. Is the politics of the West Bank, of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority any different? Why else is it that in a proposed Two State solution, Mahmoud Abbas adamantly refuses to recognize Israel as "the Jewish State"?

It was Ceausescu, the dictator in Rumania and a great friend of Yasser Arafat, who, at Soviet Union urging, persuaded Arafat to desist from announcing his religious goal of "annihilating the Jews or driving them into the sea" and to reframe the issue by changing his announced motive from religious jihad to secular nationalism. He urged Arafat to announce instead, a desire to "liberate the Palestinan people" by achieving their political self determination even though there had never before been a "Palestinian people"[19] and the local Arabs had rejected self rule when the Brish offered it to them during WWI.

"But we are a revolution," Arafat exploded, after Ceausescu explained what the Kremlin wanted from him. "We were born as a revolution, and we should remain an unfettered revolution." Arafat expostulated that the Palestinians lacked the tradition, unity, and discipline to become a formal state. That statehood was only something for a future generation. That all governments, even Communist ones, were limited by laws and international agreements, and he was not willing to put any laws or other obstacles in the way of the Palestinian struggle to eradicate the state of Israel."[20]

The local Arabs in Palestine had always been ruled by others. In 1920 the Ottoman Empire had been the undisputed sovereign of Palestine for some 400 years. The British Mandate rule lasted from 1920 to 1947.

As late as 1964 the term "Palestinian People" had never been  applied to the Arabs in Israel nor had there been any mention of their  "liberation". Prior to the British Mandate, they had usually  considered themselves part of "Greater Syria".

The first use of "The Palestinian People" to refer solely to  local Arabs in what is now Israel was made in 1964 in the Preamble of  the PLO Charter that was drafted in Moscow in 1964 as part of a Soviet  disinformation program. The first 422 members of the Palestinian  Council were selected by the KGB and approved the PLO Charter.[21] This  was revealed by General Ion Pacepa, the highest Soviet bloc defector  during the Cold War. After Israel conquered Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1967, the claim of the PLO was extended to those areas as well. In the Oslo Accord, Arafat agreed to relinquish the claim of "the Palestinian  People" to Israel proper, and to the goal of the annihilation of the  Jews and to the means of armed struggle to achieve these goals by  amendment of the Charter. That has been promised but never carried out. In fact, Fatah recently reaffirmed its commitment to the use of armed  struggle to achieve its goals if it deemed necessary.

According to General Pacepa, "In March 1978, . . . I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest to involve him in a long-planned Soviet/Romanian disinformation plot. Its goal was to get the United States to establish diplomatic relations with him, by having him PRETEND to transform the terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile that was willing to renounce terrorism. Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev believed that newly elected US President Jimmy Carter would swallow the bait." He did.[22]

Four months later General Pacepa defected to the United States and revealed that "The Palestinian People" was  invented in Moscow by the Soviets. It is clear, however, that the Arabs have now adopted that term as their own.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization or PLO was one of several liberation organizations created by the Soviets in the mid 60s or 70s,  including those for Bolivia (also 1964) , Columbia (1965), and Armenia  (1975)., "The Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia" carried out  bombings of US airline Offices in Europe. The Soviets also created "The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine" that bombed Israelis. Of all the "liberation organizations formed by the KGB, The PLO has  been the most successful.

Is General Pacepa credible? A May 12, 2009 article published in the Jerusalem Post, which dealt with Pacepa's claim, stated that "former CIA director James Woolsey has vouched for Pacepa's personal credibility. Pacepa's memoir Red Horizons formed the basis for the indictment and conviction of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, who was executed in 1989.

Zuhair Mohsen, a member of the Executive Committee of the PLO, is perhaps most widely known in the West for having made the following  admission in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state  is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel  for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between  Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and  tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian  people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.[23] Other high-level Palestinian Arabs, including Yasir Arafat, have denied that  Palestinians are a people; this is discussed in an article by Tsafrir  Ronen called "Hadrian's Curse -- The Invention Of Palestine." [24]

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with  defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a  Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and  Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

This contravened the 1964 PLO charter, drafted in Moscow, which  claims the existence of a Palestinian people with national rights. The  first 422 members of the PLO National Council had been handpicked by the Soviet Union KGB.[25]

Is there now a Third Wave?

The seeds of the putative third wave were planted by Hassan al Banna in the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920s in Egypt and Mawlana Mawdudi in forming Jamaat-e-Islamia in Pakistan and fostered by the philosophers of jihad, Sayeed Qutb, Sheik Abdullah Azzam and Haj Amin al Husseini who pushed it in the British Mandate. But the Brotherhood was easily controlled by the Egyptians until it and its offshoots began receiving petrodollars from the Saudis.[26]

Prior to Israel's Declaration of Independence in 1948, Hassan al  Banna said: "If the Jewish State becomes a fact [the Arabs] will drive  the Jews who live in their midst into the sea." That is currently the  official goal of both Hamas and Fatah expressed in their charters.

Following the takeover of the West's oil interests and the  formation of OPEC, for internal political reasons the Saudis commenced  providing petrodollars to the Wahhabis, The Sunni Wahhabis used the  immense sums to finance mosques and madrassahs all over the world and  take control over existing mosques. These were used to spread their  salafist doctrine -- Islam as it existed in the 7th Century. Other  Muslim groups such as the Shia in Iran and the Deobandi in Indonesia  also adopted similar extreme doctrines.

Those who do not study history will not recognize the wave of  terror commencing in the West in the 1970s as the start of "the third  wave" of global conquest. The attacks listed below are limited to  attacks on the West and do not include the civil war between the Islamic Salvation Front and the government of Algeria, the massacre in the  Sudan with the goal of Islamization, the Black September riots in  Jordan, the Civil War in Lebanon, the Hezollah-Israel conflicts, the  Hamas-Israel conflict, and the attacks on US and coalition forces in  Afghanistan and Iraq.

The violence may have begun as early as 1968 with the murder of presidential aspirant Senator Robert Kennedy. The motive of Sirhan-Sirhan, a favorite topic of conspiracy promoters, has insufficiently received recognition as hatred of Kennedy's support for Israel based on propaganda he received in Palestine before his emigration to the US.[27] Sirhan Sirhan was not a Muslim, but was apparently greatly influenced by jihadi sentiment in Palestine before he arrived in the United States.

Before the takeover of the American Embassy in Teheran in 1979,  there were also the murders of two American diplomats in Khartoum in the Sudan, and there is a list on the internet of other American victims in incidents not receiving as much publicity as those I list below.[28]  The author has apparently overlooked the bombing of the US Embassy in  Nairobi, Kenya on August 8, 1998 that killed 11 Americans.

The Wave of Violence:

1. 1979 U.S. Embassy take over in Teheran
2. 1982-91 Kidnapings of 10 Americans in Lebanon
3. 1983 Suicide truck bombing of U.S embassy, Beirut
4. 1983 Suicide truck bombing of U.S. Marine barracks, Beirut, killing 241 Marines
5. 1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy Annex in Kuwait
6. 1984 Suicide bombing attack of U.S. Embassy Compound, Beirut
7. 1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221
8. 1985 Restaurant bombing, Madrid
9. 1985 Hijacking of TWA 847, Algiers, Beirut
10. 1985 Bombing Rhein-Main air base, Frankfurt
11. 1985 Hijacking of cruise liner Achille Lauro, Port Said, Egypt
12. 1985 Hijacking of Egyptair 648, Malta
13 1985 Rome and Vioenna airport grenade and gun massacres
14.1986 Bombing of TWA flight 840
15. 1986 La Belle Disco bombing, West Berlin
16. 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, Lockerbie, Scotland
17. 1993 Gun attack on CIA employees, Langley, VA
18. 1993 First World Trade Center bombing, NYC
19. 1994 Jewish Cultural Center bombing, Buenos Aires
20. 1995 Bombing of U.S. Military Complex, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
21. 1996 Bombing of the Khobar Towers, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
22 1996 Osama bin Laden's "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
23. 1998 Bombing of US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
24. 2000 Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Aden, Yemen
25. 2001 Destruction of World Trade Center, NYC
26. 2001 Attack on the Pentagon, Washington, DC
27. 2004 Ferry bombing, Phillipines
28. 2004 Bombing Australian Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia
29. 2004 Bombing trains, Madrid
30. 2005 Bombing attacks in the London underground railway and in the streets, London
31. 2006 Airline bomb plot at Heathrow [29]
32. 2007 Bombing attacks on London nightclubs and Glasgow Airport Since the initial draft of this paper, we have also had the 13 murders  at Fort Hood by Nidal Hassan and the attempted destruction of Northwest  flight #253 approaching Detroit.

There have been 10,925 deadly terror attacks world wide since 9/11[30]

The Sunni Wahabis were not the only radical Islamists preaching violence. It's been preached by Khomenei, a Shiite, (1942) who said that "Islam is not a religion of Pacifists" continuously to an Imam whose sermon on April 12th, 2008 repeats that goal.[31] Maududi was a Deobandi. [32]

It seems clear that the Third Wave has commenced.

Following the bombing attack on London nightclubs and the attack  on the Glasgow Airport the following day by Muslim doctors, Andrew  Bostom wrote an article entitled "Doctors of Death". In it he referred  to the third wave of jihad as "a fulminant recrudescence" of the  millennium of Islamic Jihad. "Recrudescence" is like coming down with  shingles 75 years after recovery from the chickenpox as I have.  "Fulminant", a medical term, means that it came back with a bang.

Bernard Lewis characterized the third wave as proceeding both by terror and by migration.[33]

Here is the strategic goal for the Muslim Brothers in the United States, even without violence: as discovered in documents obtained and submitted in evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial.[34] Their authenticity was not disputed. The first part of the document is in Arabic but if you scroll down to page 17 you will find the English translation of what is in store for you if we do not prepare to resist not only violent Jihad, but the stealthy takeover also contemplated. This next is from the document.

 "Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

 The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all  the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western  civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their  hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's  religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and  work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes,  and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal."

There are currently two Arab judenrein states in what had been Palestine -- states ethnically cleansed of Jews for Palestinians, namely Jordan and Gaza. Altogether, there are 22 Muslim states created out of the Ottoman Empire, with the 22nd created in 76% of Palestine, and the 23rd, the putative state of Gaza, created out of part of the rest. Most of the Sephardic Jews indigenous to those 22 states since Biblical times, some 800,000 of them, have left those states since 1950. [35] They left behind land totaling in area five times as much as  the area of Israel, and were forced to leave behind many billions of  dollars in bank accounts and personal property. There is easily enough space in Islamic States in the Middle East and the Maghreb to house all the Arab refugees and wealth confiscated by 22 states, to compensate  them for any lost property in Israel.

Why is there a need for still a third Palestinian state? Not one of those 23 Arab or Muslim states has as yet acceded to one "Jewish  state."

Israel and the US seem to be the world's first line of defense  and the biggest barriers to overcome if radical Islam's goal of world  conquest is to be achieved. Is it any wonder that the US and Israel are the most hated by radical Islam?

The war against Israel is not a war for political self  determination of the local Arabs in Palestine. The Two State scenario is a red herring. The Oslo Peace Process is a charade. The Arab Israeli  conflict is simply a separate front in the war of jihad against the  West. It started in the 1920s instead of the 1970s because it is closer  to Egypt, the birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood and it was not until  the late 60s when it could be financed with OPEC petrodollars that the  Brotherhood could mount terror further afield. It is motivated by  religious jihad not the fake secular nationalism of the fake  "Palestinian People" conjured up by the Soviet Union's disinformation  masters in 1964.

Israel is simply receiving blows motivated by the same animus  such as that found in Robert Kennedy's assassination in California in  1968, the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole, the World Trade Center attack on 9/11/2000 in New York,  the rail bombing in Spain in 2004, the London underground bombing in  2005 and the recent Russian subway bombings in March, 2010 and many more attacks globally. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic  imperialism would have found other locations to release its energy and  its desire for conquest. It is not unlikely that Spain, formerly under  Islamic domination, would have been the target. According to Geert  Wilders, a Member of the Dutch Parliament, "Thanks to Israeli parents  who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in  America, Spain, England and Russia can sleep well and dream, unaware of  the dangers looming."[36]

President Obama and some others are in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the main stream media narrative of conjured up grievances of Muslim minorities. But it is clear from Al Qaeda's own communications in Arabic with other Arab entities[37], that if Israel  were to fall, it would not bring any relief to the West. Wilders  predicts: "It would not mean the terrorists would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. Just the opposite. The end of  Israel would give enormous encouragement to the terrorists. They would, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and easy prey. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam,  but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for  world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everyone."
 

Notes

[1] Bernard Lewis, "Europe and Islam", Irving Kristol Lecture, (American Enterprise Institute), 2007,
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080818_EuropeandIslam.pdf p. 8

[2] Government Exhibit obtained in the search of Elbarasse, Search-4, 4-CR-240-G, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, et al.

[3] Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism, A History, (Yale University Press, New Haven and London), updated edition 2007, pp1,2

[4] David Gaubatz, The Muslim Mafia,  (WND books, Los Angeles, CA 2009) pp 259, 260.

 [5] Karsh, op. cit.

[ 6] Terrorist planet.com
http://www.terroristplanet.com/muslimbrotherhood.htm

[7] Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader, (Random House, Inc.), 2007, as discussed in the Middle East Quarterly article " How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War Defeating Jihadist Terrorism."
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

 [8] Karsh, op. cit.

[9]Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims , (Prometheus), 2005,

[10] Maulana Maududi wrote over 120 books and pamphlets. Jihad in Islam (1927) was his first important book. This quote was reprinted in The Legacy of Jihad,op cit.

[11]. Michael Oren, Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present.

[12] The foregoing summary has been paraphrased from reviews of Bostom's book.

[13] Karsh, op. cit.

[14] Terrorist Awareness Project
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/

 [15] Congressional Record, 1922, House of Representatives, National Home for the Jewish People, June 30, 1922, Joint Resolution

[16] Terrorist Awareness Project
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/

[17] Morris, 1948, A History of the First Arab-Israeli War,  Yale University Press), 2008, p. 394

 [18] Denis MacEoin, "Dimensions of Jihad: Suicide Bombing as Worship", Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2009 pp. 15-24.

 [19] Ion Mihai Pacepa, Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescus' Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption, (Regnery Gateway, Washington, DC.) 1990 .

 [20] Front Page Magazine, "Interview of General Pacepa",
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=

[21] Pacepa, op.cit.

 [22]  http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/08/how-the-kgb-cre.htmlhttp://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13975

 [23] Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen

[24] Tsafrir Ronen, "Hadrian's Curse ” The Invention Of Palestine," 2008,
http://www.think-israel.org/ronen.hadriancurse.htm

[25] David Meir-Levi,  "How the Palestinians Won the Propaganda War", The Jewish Press, Dec 19, 2007

[26] Dore Gold, Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism

 [27] Mel Ayrton, "Why Sirhan Sirhan Assassinated Robert Kennedy",
http://www.crimemagazine.com/05/sirhansirhan,0906-5.htm

[28] http://avpv.tripod.com/AmericanVictims.html

[29] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3671825.ece

[30] http://thereligionofpeace.com

31] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351242,00.html

[32] Mawlana Maududi op. cit.

 [33] Bernard Lewis, op. cit.

[34] An explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, 5/22/1991,
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf

[35] Of the 22 states, only Morocco and Tunisia have not forced out the Jews.

[36] Geert Wilders, "We have no problem to be tolerant of the tolerant"
http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task= view&id=1692&Itemid=1

[37] Raymond Ibrahim, op. cit.
 

 Wallace Edward Brand is a retired lawyer living in Virginia. This article was submitted May 28, 2010.

What is it that unites Catholic Thomists and evangelical fideists (as well as  observant Jews), but divides all of them from Muslims? It is the Biblical  belief that God loves his creatures. Heavenly bodies are not deities, but  rather lamps and clocks for human benefit. That is a dogmatic assertion on the  strength of Biblical revelation, not a logical conclusion. A loving God, in the  Biblical view, places man in a world that he can comprehend, which is to say  that God establishes order in the universe out of love for humankind. We live  in the best of all possible worlds (that is, a comprehensible one), Leibniz  argued, because a good God would not maroon us in the second-best version. This  implies that if God were not good, the world might not be as hospitable to  humans as it is. This is unimaginable to Christians or Jews, but not to  Muslims, who think that Allah can make any sort of world he wants, or indeed a  different world from one day to the next.

Spengler

Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman, senior editor at First Things  magazine (www.firstthings.com).

The Meaning of Revolution - The Totalitarian Left

 Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 13 Aug 2010

“Yes, there are the Islamists. But these  are merely a front, a facade. The real enemy, in this case, is the  totalitarian Left. ”

An attempt to destroy a political system necessarily coincides  with an attempt to destroy the economy of that system. Economic  sabotage is not the fictitious activity of nonexistent groups. It is the activity of real enemies, foreign and domestic. Watch the players at  work. Consider which nations are manipulating oil prices, grain prices, and strategic metals. Ask yourself what their goal is. Why are they  doing it? Are they attempting to raise the standard of living within  their own countries, or attempting to smash the standard of living in  the United States? In a recent speech on August 3, David Horowitz said, "We are in a war with enemies both internal and external who seek our  destruction." Horowitz was accepting a Lifetime Achievement Award from  the Young America's Foundation. If anyone understands America's  internal enemy it is Horowitz. He was raised by communists, and broke  with the Left when he realized what the Left actually signifies.  

Who are the enemies spoken of by Horowitz? Most Americans cannot answer  this question, because the unnamed enemy does not appear openly in a  direct assault upon our system. Yes, there are the Islamists. But these  are merely a front, a facade. The real enemy, in this case, is the  totalitarian Left. To understand how this enemy operates, you must  understand the concept of "revolution" and how it applies to  present-day events.

History teaches that revolutions periodically  occur. Often, revolutions follow in the wake of financial crises and  wars. To make a revolution the revolutionary must therefore pay  attention to crisis situations and wars. The Marxists were the first to consciously predicate themselves on the inevitability of economic  breakdown, and Vladimir Lenin was the first to successfully exploit a  systemic breakdown to seize power.

In October 1920 Lenin defined his revolutionary attitude in the following way:

...the revolutionary is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for this  world. He should not hesitate to destroy any position, any place or any man in this world. He must hate everyone and everything in it with  equal hatred. All the worse for him if he has any relations with  parents, friends or lovers; he is no longer a revolutionary if he is  swayed by these relationships.

Lenin went on to repudiate what he called "bourgeois morality," which is based on God's  commandments. "We, of course, do not believe in God," he explained.  What the communists seek is the destruction of the bourgeoisie.  Therefore, said Lenin, "Our morality stems from the interests of the  class struggle...." Turning one class against another is the basis for a revolution in which the "vanguard party" of Lenin takes power. This is made possible by a worsening economic crisis. Once the capitalists  have been fully blamed and vilified, the vanguard of the oppressed can  unite the masses to overthrow the capitalists and abolish the  capitalist class (in favor of a small clique of revolutionary  activists).

The ambition, in this case, is not limited to taking  over one country. The class struggle, said Lenin, must continue into  other countries. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" must become  all-powerful throughout the world. Stalin wrote that this was the chief  point of departure for Leninism. You don't simply overthrow the tsar  and stop. You continue to overthrow governments until all governments  are under your dictatorship. Lenin wrote of a universal system  "unlimited by any laws, and absolutely unhampered by any rules and  relying directly on force." He proposed a new morality which "serves to destroy the old ... society."

Eugene Lyons once wrote, "Russia  is a nation occupied by an internal enemy." This was the achievement of Lenin. He founded a state based on terrorism. The chief of Lenin's  secret police, Felix Dzerzhinsky, explained it thus: "We stand for  organized terror." The instrument of terror, of course, was the All  Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and  Sabotage (CHEKA). This organization eventually came to be called the  Committee for State Security (KGB), and is currently called the Federal Security Service (FSB). Russia's current dictator, Vladimir Putin, was  a career KGB officer and former chief of the FSB. It is an organization that continues to serve the Communist Party Soviet Union underground, which continues to control Eastern Europe through its cells in  government, industry and culture. In other words, the Cold War did not  end. Communism is not dead. It merely opened the West to deeper  penetration through the facade of "controlled democracy" and  "capitalism." From its inception, the Russian Federation has supported  (secretly and sometimes openly) communist parties, front groups and  communist governments around the world. This fact has been brought  forward in books by journalists like Yevgenia Albats (see The State Within a State: The KGB and its Hold on Russia -- Past, Present and Future), and cited in news reports on Venezuela's arms buildup, on new  proposals for training the Cuban military, and weapons transfers to  China. Moscow still supplies its old Soviet satellites with weapons;  meanwhile, the Americans are the ones fighting in Afghanistan. An  interesting reversal, though few have bothered to notice.

The  objective of Russia's rulers, as under Lenin, is to destroy the United  States (as the last dinosaur of capitalism). Since Lenin's works were  never thoroughly studied by people in the West, it is not generally  understood that Lenin was in favor of using capitalism to destroy  capitalism; that he favored a retreat into capitalist forms of  production and trade in order to hang the bourgeoisie. When asked where he would get a rope long enough to hang so many people, Lenin replied  that the capitalists would sell it to the Bolsheviks themselves.

The West has disarmed itself psychologically. There is no sense of an  ongoing struggle, no sense that socialism signifies the destruction of  the West's system of ordered liberty. We hear a great deal about  "rights," but very little about duties and obligations. Here we enter  the realm of information warfare. If a subset of the population feels  that society owes them certain benefits, and the political system is  democratic, they can vote for whatever demagogue promises to confer  those benefits. As the movement for increasing benefits gains momentum, the government finds itself entangled in obligations that guarantee  its eventual bankruptcy and collapse. The victory of Lenin's  revolution, therefore, is assured.

In the days of duty, under a  regime of obligation, there were three departments of government: The  State Department, the War Department, and the Treasury Department.  There were no departments for educating, feeding, or housing people;  there were no departments for taking care of the sick or elderly. The  people were responsible for themselves: to feed themselves, to house  themselves, to raise and educate their own children, to care for sick  and aging relatives. The involvement of the national government in  these activities is something new, growing out of the pathology of  inflated rights and diminishing duties. These latter concepts, in their ultimate tendency, signify a campaign of economic sabotage against the system as a whole.

Furthermore, a serious distortion of  statesmanship occurs. Year by year, the statesman's time is  increasingly devoted to an growing subset of misfits and neurotics,  supposedly "oppressed" by an unfair social system which must be  rectified. Little by little, the "oppressed" become the state's chief  preoccupation, eclipsing the traditional tasks of statesmanship. The  system no longer justifies itself in religious or historical terms, but on egalitarian grounds, in terms of "fairness" or "social justice."  What actually happens, overall, is that greater and greater demands are placed upon the productive citizen to provide for the unproductive.  For thousands of years the helpless infant was provided for by his  parents. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his  need," was not merely the slogan of Karl Marx. It describes the  operation of the family unit. The helpless infant is provided for by  capable parents. In old age, the child provides for the parent. But  when this ideal is applied to society as a whole, the family unit  disintegrates and some children never grow to adulthood. They simply  evolve into permanent wards of the state. Consider the consequences, as well, to the family: The woman is no longer obliged to be a wife and  mother, the man is no longer the breadwinner, as the child ceases to be obedient. In most states of the Union, family court has effectively  dispensed with paternal rights, as the woman finds her ultimate support in the state. There is no need for a husband today, because the state  is the husband of every woman, the father of every child. The paternal  engine of society has been disconnected. The role of the child is no  longer to obey, but to rebel. And even so, the most devastating damage  is yet unseen: National defense is thereby shortchanged, and all  resources are consumed in an orgy of organized plunder. As this new  system cannibalizes the real productive formations of society, the  nation is devitalized, diverted and disarmed. The child must be rescued  from the bad parent, the woman must be rescued from the bad man, and  the worker must be rescued from the bad employer. All resources are  mobilized to rescue the oppressed, so that national defense is left in  the lurch. Feeding the hungry, and eliminating the capitalists, becomes the primary task.

The revolution becomes manifest. An attempt to  destroy a political system necessarily coincides with an attempt to  destroy the economy of that system. Economic sabotage is not the  fictitious activity of nonexistent groups. It is happening all around  us.

JR Nyquist   jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com