The Co-Existence of Humanity…Leaves Much to Be Desired – 7.14.2008

This comment was left by Enditthinks on my post about the NPT:

My only point of contention with your blog is the fact that the United States has so many nuclear arms that is not even slightly comparable with any other nation besides Russia. There is no reason for us to have so many ways to destroy each other. Also Nuclear Deterrence is not the only way that security can be maintained in this world.

I also disagree with your idea that Man cannot learn and turn to diplomacy. With regards to the amount of war and violence in the world we are actually living in a very safe period of human history. Do not let the powerless terrorist have control over your logic. They do not have the capacity to damage the entire world like nation states do. There has not been a major war between nations states (besides Iraq which the US started for no reason) since the Vietnam war.

We have learned that it is better to coexist.

As of August 31, 2007 (the most recent article I could find) the United States has 5,736 active nuclear weapons, of varying model and capability. As of December 31, 2006 3,696 were operationally deployed. I could not find a breakdown of the number of Russian nuclear weapons, but I thought this article was interesting. As we can see, Russia remains a nuclear threat, and that is a threat we must be prepared to counter. The world slept during the run-up to World War II, and the result was disastrous. Complacency must not dull the edge of our swords; this isn’t paranoia but merely a cold realization of the, shall we say, unfriendliness, of the world.

Nuclear deterrence may not be the only way to maintain stability (and I never said it was), but it certainly helped during the Cold War. Granted that the Cold War is over, but the fact that such weapons exist can certainly help keep people in line.

The United States and Europe are enjoying a period of relative calm, not the world. Due to our civilization, the values that have been cultivated over the years, and the horrors of past wars, has the West learned to appreciate peace. I think that the sad fact is that enough people died and the devastation was so great and far reaching in World War I and World War II that Western people were shocked into peace. Ethnic cleansing works much the same way; stability occurs afterwards not so much that people appreciate each other, in terms of realizing the equality of their neighbor, but that the factions have been bled dry.

If the terrorist is powerless, then what was 9/11 ? The Madrid Train Bombings ? The London Subway Bombings ? What about the 11,452 Jihadist attacks since 9/11 ? A chronic ailment of the West has been underestimating the enemy it faces. This is just another example. Major wars between nation states may have subsided (for know) but history is cyclical. Who is to rule out that nation states could not once again go to war once more? Russia (to use one example) is certainly staying belligerent and we have to be wary of that. Additionally, the emergence of proxy wars – one nation state using another faction for their own ends – cannot be ruled out. We have seen it many times in today’s era. For example, Iran has been waging war against the United States and Israel by supporting Hizballah and the Shi’ite Militias in Iraq. If such matters were dealt with in an honest fashion, we would realize that the United States is at War with Iran. Instead, we obfuscate and dither, while the enemies of the world wait for us to weaken and falter in our step. They watch from the shadows as a hungry predator who is waiting for his prey to show weakness.

In short, some of humanity has learned to co-exist, but not all.  Until the day when humanity decides to lay down arms (and that day will never occur) there will be war and conflict. It is the sad reality of our existence.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

Sudan and Darfur – 7.10.2008

For as long as I can remember, there has been tribal war, mass rape, and rampant disease in Africa. Every once in a while, the amount of killing, bloodshed, and suffering reaches the attention of the oh so wise International Community. The United Nations and all of its associated Councils and Committees convenes and “denounces” the dictator in question, shows “disapproval”, or issues “non-binding” resolutions. If the bad behavior continues, then the all mighty sanctions are unleashed. Sometimes the United Nations even throws together a Peacekeeper Force – often a hodge-podge coalition of the unwilling – and deploys them in a combat zone. 

Sometimes, these forces are effective and others they are not. My knowledge of UN Peacekeeping missions is still limited, so I will focus on two I am familiar with.

SUDAN AND DARFUR

There are two missions that the UN is currently operating:

Sudan 

To be generous, going by the article, we will say that there are 15,000 UN personnel in Sudan. 10,000 are military personnel, who are tasked with:

a. A stable Sudan capable of conducting a peaceful referendum 61/2 years after the Mandate in South Sudan and Abyei.

b. The ability for South Sudan to determine Sudanese unity or peaceful secession.

c. The ability for Abyeito determine unification with Bar el Gazhal or separate status within North Sudan.

d. Provision for a stable environment in Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile State to allow the peoples of those States through consultation come to an agreement that will be the final settlement of the political conflict in their State.

Sounds rather grand doesn’t it? Is it achievablethough? I do not believe the mission is achievable, not the money or manpower that the UN has committed. This raises the question – is the investment in men and money worth it, if from the very beginning it is acknowledged that the mission can’t be accomplished? Again, I would say no.

Sudan is the 10th Largest country in the world, 2,505,813 km2.  IFthere was actually civilian infrastructure in place (roads, airstrips, hospitals, towns, etc) then the mission would easier, but save for a few areas there is no infrastructure. And where the rebels live is tribal badlands. That means any force you send out in pursuit of these rebels has to equipped for the travel and you have to be able to resupply them while the combat force is out “hunting”. This means you need helicopters, fuel, pilots, mechanics, parts, etc. All of this gear has to arrive in a timely fashion, and the mechanics have to have the experience to actually fix the machine. 45 countries are contributing Peacekeeper forces to the Sudan mission – many of the countries are SouthAmerican, Asian and African Countries, which leads me to doubt their competency. Britain, Australia, and Germany are on the list along with other small European countries, and I have confidence in their armed forces, but confidence doesn’t win wars. Cohesion of force and logistics, combined with the proper tactics and strategy, win wars.

Cohesion of force will be impossible with this Peacekeeper Force. The language barrier and the technological barrier are two reason why. Imagine how many interpreters there have to be – what if some are killed? Immediately the cohesion and ability to combine arms is affected. African mechanics may not be trained to work on British or American helicopters, which they would almost certainly be using. Your pool of qualified mechanics just shrunk, which means the others will be worked that much harder. For instance, a damaged helicopter has to land at Point A. Point A has no mechanics cleared to work on the machine; that means that the helicopter has to be transported by land to another location, or another mechanic has to travel to Point A. Welcome to logistics.

Because of these issues, I doubt very much that the UN Mission will even be minimally successful in their stated strategic goals. The Western countries who signed on no doubt had good intentions, but good intentions can bite you in the ass:

“No good deed goes unpunished”

When you commit men and resources that will ultimately be wasted, because you lack the political will to go all the way, then you do every man you send to war a grave disservice. You relegate them to merely being a tool to boosting your political reputation.

Darfur Region

As you can from the map, the Darfur Region is fairly large. The United Nations plan a force of 20,000 – half of which would be African troops – but currently has deployed only 9,065. How can you control as big an area as is Darfur with 10,000 troops? You can’t! For the sake of brevity, I will refer you to what I wrote about Sudan proper; the same lessons still apply.

In the News:

Africa – War on the Rescuers

A Thin Coat of Blue – Important. Read It.

7 Peacekeepers Killed In Darfur Attack

Heed the lessons of war. Few do, to our detriment.

Mike Grant – Samnite Gladiator

English Law and Shari’a Law – 7.8.2008

Fantastic. Great Britain continues to commit cultural suicide in the face of Islamism.

Surrender! by Cal Thomas

Sadly, this is a continuing trend. Honor Killings in the West, though God forbid the MSM call them that, have been more visible of late.

Honor Killing

Comments on Shari’a by David G. Littman

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – 7.8.2008

“40 years later, nuclear states still haven’t kept promises” is the title of an op-ed written by Tad Daley, which was published in The Baltimore Sun. An excerpt outlining the basic premise of the column:

The grand bargain of the NPT was that the non-nuclear weapon states agreed never to produce or acquire nuclear weapons, and the nuclear weapon states agreed eventually to get rid of theirs. No, that is not a misprint. On July 1, 1968, our government committed itself to negotiate the elimination of its entire nuclear arsenal – and, with the other nuclear weapon states, to abolish nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth forever. Indeed, the nuclear weapon states have repeatedly restated their intention to fulfill that promise. The treaty entered into force in 1970. At the 25-year NPT Review Conference in 1995, the nations committed again “to systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons.” At the 30-year NPT Review Conference in 2000, the commitment was reiterated. And the World Court concluded unanimously that the NPT had created “an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.”

The author continues, saying that the delay of nuclear states in disarmament will only encourage proliferation as the “have-nots” – to put it crudely – say “Screw it, we’re developing nukes”. Thus, the United States and other nuclear powers must disarm in an attempt to stop an inevitable nuclear Armageddon. The author offers up North Korea and Iran, countries which are trying their best to procure and/or build nuclear weapons. He compares the above countries to a hypocritical United States which is developing new types of nuclear weapons and new delivery systems for them.

I have several issues with this reasoning.

THE NPT AS UNREALISTIC

Does anyone honestly believe that any signers of the NPT would actually disarm? The very idea flies in the face of everything we know about mankind’s behavior. Particularly in a world where the dogs of war run rampant. Some disarmament has occurred, but not complete disarmament, which is what the NPT called for. How does one abolish nuclear weapons from the face of the earth forever? Are we to take that command literally? If so, then we would have to kill anyone with knowledge of how to construct a nuclear bomb, wouldn’t we? As long as that know-how exists, whether in the minds of men or the hard drive of a computer than a nuclear bomb could be built.

Also, all one has to do to legally circumvent the NPT is simply not sign the document! All signers would then disarm, since they “negotiated in good faith” but several players would then have nuclear weapons. Most likely these states would try to exploit their new power over their former equals. Nuclear weapons can be a deterrent. Simply look at the Cold War and the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction. If nuclear weapons weren’t in play, I think armed conflict would have occurred on the scale of World War II.

NUCLEAR POWER

It is easy enough to change a peaceful, civilian nuclear power program to one that has military applications. Ask India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran. India, Pakistan, and North Korea shocked the world with their first nuclear tests, and it won’t be long before Iran does as well. Because of the similarities and crossover capability of civilian and military nuclear programs, do we ban nuclear power? If that would be the case, then France would be forced back to square one, with regards to power supply. Who would support the complete and total ban of nuclear power?

FALLIBILITY OF MAN

The thing about Treaties is this:

Treaties can be signed and then ignored, circumvented, forgotten; a Treaty only has as much importance as the signers give it. Hitler and Stalin had a Treaty once - remember? Remind how that played out.

Another excerpt:

That will provide that many more opportunities for a nuclear warhead to find its way into the hands of a nonstate nuclear terrorist. Or for a hot political crisis between nuclear-armed adversaries to spin wildly out of control. Or for some rogue military officer to push the nuclear button out of malevolence or mental unbalance.

I mentioned earlier (playing Devil’s Advocate) that to uphold the NPT to it’s fullest extent anyone with knowledge of how to construct nuclear weapons would have to be killed. Enter the A.Q. Khan Network. Khan and his associates were geniuses of how to export nuclear know-how to the highest bidder. They built their own factories, they routed their goods through countries with the least security restrictions, and assembled the goods on site. They could offer an enrichment facility to any country in a matter of months. How would the world cope with these men in a non-nuclear world? Everything done was clandestine, and below the radar. The world remained ignorant of Khan for many years, until he began making too many mistakes. Don’t you think that men like Khan would thrive that much more in a world where no one has nuclear weapons?

To conclude, the lack of built nuclear weapons does not end the danger. The danger comes from those who would use nuclear weapons in an irresponsible manner. Hence why Iran and North Korea are being opposed (somewhat, anyway) in their quest for nuclear weapons.

CONCLUSION

I believe the NPT to have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The world will never completely disarm, because of fear and mistrust of our fellow man. We are fallible beings, prone to vice and violence. The United States should not compromise it’s security for the sake of an unrealistic treaty that no one listens to.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

The Economist – 7.7.2008

Several months ago I purchased a subscription to The Economist. On the whole, it is an excellent magazine and I would encourage people to subscribe. It’s journalistic style favours a libertarian viewpoint on most matters. However, as informative as it is, I do disagree with some of its, shall we say, “conventional” conclusions. This post will be a combination of a review of some of The Economist’s positions and my take on them:

OPEN BORDERS

The Economist favors “freedom of movement” among nations by the inhabitants of earth. The concerns of some of us about immigration (illegal and legal) are simply dismissed as xenophobia and social backwardness. Real security concerns are brushed aside, with phrases such as:

The Department of Homeland Security is budgeting $12 billion in the next fiscal year to guard the frontier against job-seekers (and the odd mythical terrorist walking to his target).

This seems to conjure in the mind of a casual reader that a terrorist (jihadist) would actually walk to his target (the United States) across a desert carrying everything he would need. To the uninformed, the first though is incredulity and possible agreement with The Economiststaff. However, I would argue that such an oversimplification is downright dangerous. For a sleeper cell to operate successfully, a support network would need to be put in place. This would likely entail “clean” agents entering the United States legally and establishing themselves. Once in deep cover, they begin laying the foundation; buying pre-paid cell phones, propane tanks, weapons, ammunition, radios, etc. Anything an actual attack cell would require.

The members of the attack cell would likely be “unclean”. For example, they probably attended camps in the tribal badlands of Pakistan. The attackers would likely be treated as pawns, since their ultimate, final act would ideally be a suicide bombing. These members would arrive in as secret a way as possible, since their identities would be more likely to be known to the National Security infrastructure of the West. So literally walking across the desert doesn’t sound that far out after all, does it?

The real danger to the West is the embedded support networks that are most likely already in place. Uproot those cells, and real progress will be made.

ISLAMISM IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES

The Economist seems to be locked in the Cold War mentality so pervasive in today’s age. When dealing with the “Palestinian Issue” as it is sometimes referred to (though not by The Economist) more oversimplifications are made, and simple answers that don’t challenge conventional wisdom are provided. For example, Fatah is time and again referred to as the secular rival to Hamas. Rivals though they are, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority - Fatah’s legislative arm – is not secular and still desires and teaches the destruction of Israel.

Additionally, it oversimplifies Islamism in Algeria as well.

Few analysts expect a return to anything like the full-scale mayhem of the 1990s, largely because armed Islamistradicalism has lost much of its appeal.Many also discount the importance of a move, two years ago, by the main surviving guerrilla group to align itself formally with Osama bin Laden and rebrand itself as “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb”.

 Armed resistancelost it’s appeal because Muslims were the target. This is a common and misunderstood trend in the world today. People seem to take the rejection of Al-Qaeda by other Islamist groups and the “everyday” Muslim as a significant breakthrough. I believe differently. Al-Qaeda practices the Islamist ideology of takfir. Under this rule, Muslims can be declared apostates and / or Enemies of Islam for:

1) Colluding with Western Governments

2) Not practicing Islam fully

3) Colluding with an occupation force

4) Not joining Jihad

Ak-Qaeda is hated by Saudi Arabia not because Saudi Arabia rejects Islamism, but because Al-Qaeda has the House of Saud as a target! If Al-Qaeda abandoned the ideology of takfir, it would be embraced by those who once rejected it! Why? The only difference between Al-Qaeda and other Islamistgroups, and those who give tacit approval to to Jihad is the target. As long as the Western Infidel is the target of Islamism, then all is well and good. However, when the dogs of war ravage the homes of those who tacitly support, or even openly support Jihad, it becomes a different story entirely. As for Algeria, an interesting article for readers to consider.

Algeria has a tradition of tolerance of other religions but went through a decade of near-civil war between the secular army and radical Islamist groups in the 1990s. Religion is a sensitive political issue in the country.

Well I’m glad there is a “history of tolerance” – too bad it seems to be KIA. Notice how “sensitive” religion is in countries dominated by Islam, yet in the West there is so much more plurality? Might have something to do with the U.S. Constitution and the difference between Christian-Judeo culture and Islamic culture. Granted that Christianity and Judaism do not have perfect historical records, but necessary reform occurred and even still occurs when some deem it necessary. The same cannot be said of Islam.

CONCLUSION

There have been other issues, but that is to be expected. It always good to hear a difference of opinion, so that one does not stagnate himself. On a whole, I respect The Economist. They present the news in a professional and thorough manner. The same cannot be said for other Media that we currently have.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

A New Cause – 6.6.2008

Ellen R. Sheeley left the following comment on my blog, Oppression of Women:

Thank you for blogging about these crimes, Mike. Some of us are quietly working on the problem, but there are too few, and we are largely unfunded or grossly underfunded.

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
“Reclaiming Honor in Jordan”
http://www.redroom.com/author/ellen-r-sheeley

This goes hand in hand with my major point of Oppression of Women. The barbarity of honor killings often goes ignored, excused, or flat out unpunished even when it occurs in the United States. Why? A desire to hide the truth, and stop the asking of hard questions about Islam and Islamic society. We are faced with a crippling malaise of misidentification of the real problem, and thus we are left with an improper solution. When faced with Dishonor Killings, to use the term of Ellen, we blame everything but the societal attitudes that foster such an act. Only when we deal honestly with the Qur’an and what it commands, will we make progress in reforming Islamic culture.

Back to Ellen:

Her Biography

I urge you to contact Ellen and lend her your support, whether in words, money, prayer, or all three. Only be pressing forward in a united front can we force our elected leaders to take the fight against Islamism seriously. Those who labor in the trenches while others lie at ease must always be reminded of the appreciation we have for their efforts. Ellen fights the good fight against Dishonor Killings. Make no mistake, Dishonor Killings are a large part of the fight against Islamism. To win against Islamism, we must undermine it whenever and wherever possible.

 

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

Weaponized Comic Books? – 6.5.2008

Yes…unfortunately you read the title correctly…on the plus side you can read, but the bad news is far, far worse. Scott Atran thinks that he has cracked the Jihadi Code, and brought his newfound weapon to Washington – a comic book series using Muslim superheroes – that he believes will be more effective than bullets and bombs. While this idea sounds laughable at first look, I will give it a fair and full examination. Though Christopher Dickey of Newsweekhas been bowled head over heels, I remain reserved, and I beleive with good reason. Naif Al-Mutawa (the brain) and his new American liason Scott Atran seem innocent enough, but perhaps that will be to our detriment.

THE COMICS:

All of the articles I have read I will link.

Wikipedia – Official Site – Washington Post – New York Times International

When I began reading, I noticed one important thing right off the bat, which in retrospect I should have realized much sooner. One of the largest pillars in the pantheon of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” is that all cutures and religions are equal, and have universal values. And yet, to directly quote the linked articles:

1) Although the series is based in Islamic concepts, it is promoted as appealing to universal virtues, and the religion of each character is not made explicit. (Wikipedia)

2) Although the series is not religious, it aims to communicate Islamic virtues which are, as viewed by Dr. Al-Mutawa, universal in nature. (Wikipedia)

Contrast the above quotations with those below:

3) What is common between Spider-Man, Batman, and X-Men? Well they all are comic books with Judeo-Christian archetypes that shape the minds of the younger generation the world over. However, since these characters do not sync with the culture of the children brought up in different traditions they can’t be superheroes to all. In order to fill this void, a Kuwait based entrepreneur, Dr. Naif Al-Mutawa has created a superhero comic series that incorporates an Islamic identity to the world of comic books.

MY TAKE:

How can a value be universal, and yet especially Islamic? In a series where the special powers of the protagonists are based on the virtues of Allah - the Muslim - not the Christian or Jewish God, how can the religion of each character not be at the very least logically assumed to be Muslim? This gives the series and characters a strictly Islamic theme, completely flies in the face of “all cultures are equal” and “universal values”. This brings me to my second point. Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, and author of Now They Call Me Infidel spoke in her book, which I have read, of how Muslims even “everyday ones” would co-opt the values of the host society by saying “Look at what a good person he is, he is a true Muslim” regardless of the fact that the individual in question as a Christian, a Jew, an Athiest, or Hindu (to name a few examples). The Muslims saying this to here were not hardcore Islamists, but rather Muslims raised in a culture where they are inculcated from birth with sentiments such as Qur’an 3:110:

“You are the best community ever raised among the people: you advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and you believe in GOD. If the followers of the scripture believed, it would be better for them. Some of them do believe, but the majority of them are wicked. “

So it is perfectly natural for them to see Islamic values as universal, seeing as they are they best virtues. Flying further in the face of “universal virtues” is quote number 3, which originated from an Arabic newpaper, but which was placed on the official web site of the comic books. I thought all cultures were equal? Apparently not.

Some interesting terminology is used in The Washington Post article:

“Now his enthusiasm for his own pan-Islamic brand name, “The 99,” knows no bounds”

 A definition: Pan-Islamism (اتّحاد الاسلام) is a political movement advocating the unity of Muslims under one Islamic state or a Caliphate. While Pan-Arabism advocates the unity and independence of Arabs regardless of religion, pan-Islamism advocates the unity and independence of Muslims regardless of ethnicity.

Whether this is ignorance on the part of the Post writer, or deliberate on the part of Naif Al-Mutawa is unknown. But, it doesn’t strike quite the right…chord…if you know what I mean. A quote from naif Al-Mutawa in the Dinar Standard:

“One thing that kept popping into my mind was the lack of real, proper modern day role models and heroes in our part of the world. Historical figures as role models have issues; it depends on what side you belong to. You know the whole George Washington conundrum…to Americans he’s a political hero, to the British he’s a political terrorist. So that’s the problem with historical figures in Islamic society as well. Except with the prophet Mohammad (pbuh), there are few people on whom everyone would agree as their hero.”

I agree with the logic behind his initial statement. We view George Washington as an outstanding role model for our children to follow, and one of our nation’s greatest leaders. The British have a…lesser…opinion of one of our great Founding Fathers. However, the American colonies had legitimate cause against the British Crown. If we examine Islamic heroes from Afghanistan (Soviet Invasion), Bosnian-Serb War, and in today’s age, we are hard pressed to find any Islamic heroes worthy of emulation. The expansion of Islam was no better; conducted by the sword of course. This isn’t to set a double standard. How many Christians of today admire the Holy Roman Empire? I would imagine you would be hard pressed to find any. George Washington fought for true freedom from tyranny, whereas most conflicts concerning historical Islam were expansionist, and aggressive in nature.  With regards to Muhammed, I regard him as no hero, but rather a bloody warlord who initiated the Jihad against the world. How can we admire him as a hero, knowing how much misery he has brought?

Naif tells of the lament for the Islamic Golden Age; never mind that the Golden Age of Islam was built on the backs of subjugated people and conquered territory. Again, some may accuse me of a double standard, but consider this. America fought a Civil War over slavery, and the British abolished it and brought slavers to justice. Islam has no such history of crusading against slavery. What I mean is that when there are grievous flaws in the conduct of Western countries, corrective action is ought. The treament of Native Americans comes under constant scrutinty in America. History is revised to reflect the crimes of ancient empires, be they Christian, Roman, or some other type. But the myth of the Golden Age of Islam persists. Why? From The Post:

Three worry beads with 33 stones each are carried to Andalusian Spain and stored for 150 years until Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella storm Granada in 1492.

Never mind that the land was conquered by Muslims on Jihad, and before it was Spanish land. This isn’t to excuse the conduct of Spanish Armies on Reconquista, but we must deal with all sides of history honestly. To call one group in the wrong for ancient ”war crimes”, shouldn’t we do the same if the opposing party is just as culpable? Yet there is no movement towards that in Islamic thought, except among the liberal Muslims, who are intimidated by their violent Islamist opponents.

This, also from The Post, I found utterly fascinating:

Noora, from the United Arab Emirates, is kidnapped for ransom but escapes from her cell. She finds a gem in her hands as she digs a tunnel to flee. Her superhero power is the ability to see the light of truth in others and allowing them — or forcing them — to see it in themselves.

Allow me to digress for a comparison. And yes, Your Honor, I am going somewhere with this. In Stargate SG-1: The Ark of Truth, the protagonists are searching for the Ark of Truth, which is the key to SG-1 saving the planet Earth from an expansionist religion called Origin. This religion is spread by the sword, and many worlds fall to the gods of the religion, the Ori, which are only highly evolved humans. The Ark was created by an ancient and now extinct (due to their pacifistic ways) group called the Ancients which opposed the Ori. The Ark can be programmed to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. SG-1 seeks to use this to de-brainwash the followers of the false religion Origin, thus defeating the Ori. Continue to bear with me. At the end of the movie, SG-1 is successful and the Ori defeated. However, throughout the movie is the common theme of “What is truth?” “Is this an acceptable use of this device, taking away people’s free will to choose?” In short, “With great power, comes great responsibility”.

Noora sounds like a human Ark of Truth, able to force others to “See the Truth”. In this context, the Truth of what? Islam? Quite possibly, though at this point I can’t say for sure. Obviously this concerns me. Having a superhero able to force others to see the Truth of any religion, political ideology, or personal philosophy is a very dangerous concept. In the film, the use of the Ark was highly debated by the Ancients, who didn’t use it, and SG-1 used it as a last resort against a truly evil religion. For clarification, I am not comparing Origin to Islam, but am connecting the themes of the Ark of Truth (the weapon) and Noora.

One final note:

“Mumita is a bombshell from Portugal with unparalleled agility and a degree of bloodlust.”

This is an interesting point. One thing that has always separated Spiderman, Batman, etc. from their foes is the theme of Justice, tempered with Mercy. Killing is a last resort, and when death occurs, it is typically from the enemy falling from a building, being killed accidentally, if death occurs at all. Usually they are simply left for the police to arrest. Yet in a Muslim superhero, bloodlust is part of the character.

Bloodlust: A desire for violence and carnage

Is this what you want your 9-12 year old (the target audience) reading? As I have grown older, I have grown older, more exposed to the world, and exposed to the evil people of this world, I have adopted harsher attitudes toward criminals, and the enemy in war. Despite this harsher attitude, I would not define it as “bloodlust”, but rather a resigned acceptance of the world and the way it is, and what we have to do at times to protect it. I do not desire war, or violence. Yet this Muslim superhero does.

To his credit, Naif Al-Mutawa is trying to “…save the [Muslim] children from embracing a culture of violence and death.”I would argue that he is pursuing this goal in the wrong fashion. I think he will fail in his mission, because his tactics and strategy are wrong; I have made my case based on this opinion. None of what is written is to condemn Muslim children as “hopeless”, ”lost”, or “born terrorists”, but rather to illustrate how severly the deck is stacked against them. In the articles, be sure to notice how the other comics in the Arab World are portrayed. Will true change ever occur?

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

Oppression of Women – 6.4.2008

Where is Amnesty International? Where is the horde of Feminist Groups so eager to tell us of man’s discrimination and oppression of women? Where? The answer is that they are clearly elsewhere. Those he need them most, the women of the Middle East, are abandoned. Feminists are to concerned with “fair wages” and sexual “liberation” to care for the real victims of life. If only each and every one of these animals could be hunted down and killed. Watch the video. Absorb what you see. It is barbarism, plain and simple. Worse, it is barbarism wrapped in the false shrouds of honor, piety, and justice. There is no honor here, and there is nothing holy. There is merely evil.

From MEMRI.org :

On April 7, 2007, a teenage Yazidi Kurdish girl named Du’a Al-Aswad was stoned to death by a lynch-mob in Iraq, because she had violated her family’s honor. A video of the stoning, filmed by the participants themselves using their mobile phones, was posted on http://leilamagazine17.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post_6785.html .

A year after the stoning, Saudi reformist and human rights activist Wajeha Al-Huweidar wrote a scathing article in which she harshly criticized the sexist character of Arab culture and particularly the phenomenon of “honor killings.”

The following are excerpts from her article, which appeared on the reformist website www.aafaq.org.

“This Entire Part of the World [is Full of] Defeated and Dejected Men, Whose Only Way to Feel Victorious Is by Beating Women to Death”

“Last April, a 17-year old Iraqi girl named Du’a Khalil Al-Aswad fell in love with a boy from a different [religious] sect. By this act, she violated the ‘honor’ of the men in her sect, causing them to go mad with the boiling [rage] of hellfire. Their male [egos] swelled like cancerous tumors, and their minds locked into the primitive madness of ‘honor.’

“They filled with restless madness, and in order to relive their anguish, they hurried to sentence poor Du’a to death, and then decided to carry out their sentence in the ugliest possible imaginable, i.e., by public stoning. They killed her with the utmost cruelty and depravity.

“Du’a Al-Aswad is a victim of the wild male madness called ‘honor.’ This concept is prevalent throughout the Greater Middle East [Al-Sharq Al-AwsatAl-Kabir], or perhaps I should say the Greater Filthy East [Al-Sharq Al-AwsakhAl-Kabir], since it is worthy of this label from every perspective – in particular [when it comes to] the treatment of women. From Pakistan and Afghanistan through Iran, the Middle East, and all the way to Morocco, this entire part of the world [is full of] defeated and dejected men, whose only way to gain some sort of victory is by beating their women to death.

“The depraved men who participated in the stoning of Du’a – all of them [guilty of] premeditated and deliberate murder – were raised to believe that the lives of their women are theirs to control. That is why they competed with one another at stoning Du’a, and fought to film her as she gasped out her last breaths. These horrible men conspired to kill a young girl who had committed no crime and hurt no one. Each of them picked up a boulder and hurled it at her. [Feeling] prideful and glorious, they bashed in this young [girl's] head, and her blood pooled on the ground as she lay there dead…

“But killing her was not enough for them. After she was dead, they mutilated her young body, kicking her and piling more rocks on top of her. Then they broke out in cries of ‘Allah akbar,’ and ‘there is no god but Allah’ as though they had just won a strategic battle.

“Not one of them felt pity for her, not one of them lifted a finger to help her, and not one of them [even tries to] speak in her defense. They were like the stones they hurled at her – frozen and devoid of all compassion.”

 In the Middle East, the Life of a Woman Is Worth Far Less than That of an Animal

“Had Du’a been an animal, someone would have [probably] taken notice and tried to rescue her from these inhuman men. But she was a woman, and in the Greater Filthy East, the life of a woman is worth far less than the life of an animal.

“According to the norms of the East, [the concept of] ‘honor’ relates only to the behavior of women. Women have become easy prey for men, who murder them in order to restore their threatened sense of honor.

“Du’a is a victim of both men and women – she is a victim of her entire society. In a region that fosters its mens’ hostility until it becomes a raging demon, [men come to] feel that the women in their family are their property, to be treated any way they want.

“[This mentality is common among all Middle Eastern] men – Muslim and non-Muslim, Arab and non-Arab, rich and poor, educated and ignorant, great and small, those living in the West and those who have remained in their homelands – as long as they were raised in this region… that is riddled with the disease of ‘honor,’ or are of [Middle Eastern] origin. [All these men] have the potential to turn into raging beasts, especially if they were raised [to believe that] a woman’s body and [her behavior] in her private life have a [direct] bearing on their honor and on the honor of their family, clan, nation, sect and all their ancestors throughout the ages.

“All those who believe that honor [resides] in the woman’s body are potential murderers, and [could] someday murder a woman when their false sense of honor is aroused. All those who agree that a man has the right to murder a woman, or to cause her physical harm [for the sake of preserving] his honor, are potential killers.”

The Women of the Middle East Raise Their Own Executioners

“Those who believe that men have more rights than women, and raise their children to believe the same, are raising [more] men who will kill another Du’a in some other place. All those who believe that they have the right to hit a woman in order to ‘educate’ her or ‘correct her ways’ might be involved in the murder or harming of a woman.

“Any legislator who passes a law dealing leniently with ‘honor killings’ is just as culpable as those who actively participated in the murder of the victims – [just as culpable as] the murderers who have the blood of Du’a and of other women on their hands.

“All governments that discriminate between men and women in rights and duties, that shelter the perpetrators of ‘honor killings,’ and that give men either partial or complete control over women’s lives… collaborate with the perpetrators of these despicable crimes…

“On the anniversary of the death of the innocent Iraqi girl Du’a Khalil Al-Aswad, murdered in cold blood and in heinous male ferocity in front of eye witnesses, I say to the women of the Greater Filthy East: ‘Good for you for managing to raise beasts who delight in harming you and in shedding your blood and the blood of your daughters.’ [And] good for the countries and governments that attribute more importance to the lives of animals than to your lives and the lives of your daughters.

“Good for you for defending your beastly men and supporting them on political [issues]. Good for you for supporting their failing movements and wars, and their hostile thinking that allows [them] to humiliate and beat you.

“Good for you for creating your own executioners, and for supporting and aiding them. You know full well that many of them regard you as worthless beings existing [solely] for their pleasure.

“Good for you for [tolerating] these inhuman men, many of whom yearn to drink your blood and the blood of your daughters whenever the drums of revenge and ‘honor’ start beating in their rotting and petrified brains.”

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

The Islamic Republic of Iran – 6.3.2008

I post this for the people who doubts the Islamist Aspirations of the current Iranian Government. Perhpas you won’t be so quick to do doubt the words of those who know what we are dealing with after reading this. As if the multitude of articles like this wouldn’t be enough to convince people.

From the Middle Eastern Media Research Institute: PDF

Iranian Women’s Magazine Shut Down for Publishing Investigative Article on Martyrdom Movement
By: M. Nissimov, Y. Mansharof and A. Savyon* *

Introduction

In late January 2008, the Media Supervision Committee of Iran’s Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance ordered the closure of the women’s movement monthly Zanan, which had appeared in Iran for 16 years. The order came after the magazine published an investigative article on istishhad(i.e. martyrdom) operations. The conservative news agency Fars reported, citing a knowledgeable source, that the magazine had been shut down for “breaking the law and defaming military and revolutionary institutions, including the Basij,” and for “publishing reports and [raising] issues that undermine [society's] spiritual security, morale, and ideological strength, and that create a sense of insecurity in society and discredit the status of women in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” [1]

The Zanan article in question dealt with the Iranian “martyrdom movement,” which has been registering Iranian men and women for suicide operations and training some to carry out these operations. Zananfocused on the women volunteers, quoting Firooz Rajai-Far, a leader of the martyrdom movement and secretary-general of the World Islamic Organization Headquarters for Remembering the Shahids, as stating that some 20,000 women have already signed up for martyrdom operations, constituting a third of the volunteers. Rajai-Far stated that because martyrdom was a “religious duty,” women did not require the permission of their fathers, their husbands, or “even of the ruling jurisprudent” – currently Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – to volunteer for martyrdom operations. She also stated that she approved of sending even seven-year-old children on suicide missions during a war. Rajai-Far herself has signed up for martyrdom operations, and has threatened the U.S. with suicide operations against its interests in the Gulf. [2]

In addition to presenting interviews with Rajai-Far and with women martyrdom-seekers, the article also described the controversy among religious scholars, clerics, and experts in Iran regarding martyrdom operations.

 

The Inculcation of the Martyrdom Culture under Ahmadinejad

The Iranian regime has tried to present the martyrdom movement as a voluntary enterprise independent of the state. However, the presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) representatives at the movement’s registration ceremonies suggests that it is endorsed by the regime. [3]This assumption is further supported by the 2004 statement by Mohammad Ali Samedi, spokesman of the World Islamic Organization Headquarters for Remembering the Shahids, that “the martyrdom [operations] will begin only at the order of [Iranian Supreme] Leader [Khamenei].” [4] In a May 2008 speech to families of shahids, Khamenei characterized martyrdom as “a source of pride” and as “sacrifice in the path of God” which “gladdens [the heart of] God.” [5]

Moreover, martyrdom is a value personally endorsed and promoted by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and also by the official Iranian media, which stresses the importance of inculcating the “culture of martyrdom” in society. In a speech at a January 2008 Basij conference, Ahmadinejad stated that “today, more than ever, we must inculcate in the younger generation the culture of shahada [martyrdom]. This is a mission of supreme ideological [importance]… One who treads the path of martyrdom and brings himself to this extreme attains the pinnacle of human [achievement]. It is a duty incumbent upon [each member of] the public to bring himself, as well as others, to this pinnacle…”

In the speech, Ahmadinejad called martyrdom “the greatest legacy and future source [of power] of the Iranian people,” adding that “a society in which each and every individual is willing to sacrifice himself for the goals and values of divine purity, or for the sake of the culture of martyrdom, is a constructive, dynamic, and in fact unique society.” [6]

In a July 2005 speech, Ahmadinejad asked: “Is there an art more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal that the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity. Those who wish to undermine this principle undermine the foundations of our independence and national security. They undermine the foundation of our eternity.” [7]

The value of martyrdom is also stressed by regime heads in their speeches. For example, at a February 2008 convention of IRGC clerics, Mohsen Mojtahed Shabestari, Khamenei’s representative in East Azerbaijan, underscored the importance that the regime attributes to it, saying: “The clerics’ most important mission is to preserve the spirit of martyrdom and to strengthen religious faith within society.” [8]

A similar point was made in an editorial titled “Iran’s Trump Cards against America” in the weekly Parto-ye Sokhan, affiliated with Ahmadinejad’s mentor Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-e Yazdi: “[Iran's] most effective deterrent against an attack is the army’s and the nation’s belief in martyrdom and in immortality [through] death for the sake of God. This [belief] eliminates all fear, and deters the enemy [i.e. the U.S.] from attacking Iran.” [9]It should be stressed that, in a July 2005 speech, Ayatollah Mesbah-e Yazdi himself called on the Iranian public to sign up for suicide operations against the U.S. and other “enemies of Islam.” [10]

Iran’s state-sponsored TV channels frequently air programs conveying messages of martyrdom. See, for example, MEMRI Clip No. 917, “Bridegroom Turns Suicide Bomber in Iranian Music Video” (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/917.htm ). [11]

 

Suicide Operations as an Element of Iran’s Security Strategy

Suicide operations form an integral part of Iran’s security doctrine. [12]This is evident from an October 2007 interview with IRGC deputy naval commander Ali Fadavi, in which he emphasized the significance, attributed to these operations by the regime, and described the close collaboration between the IRGC and the Basij in this area. Fadavi said: “Even small operations can greatly impact the strategic Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz… It is not the number of Basij soldiers that counts in realizing this plan, but their quality – because each one is capable of doing excellent work as a martyr… The Basij forces are still seeking martyrdom, and now this spirit is prevailing throughout the IRGC… If necessary, we will take advantage of [this willingness] for self-sacrifice… The IRGC and the Basij forces have begun to collaborate closely, and the fruit of these plans will be visible [to all] when the enemies become so stupid as to start posing an actual threat to Iran.” [13]

In early May 2008, IRGC Naval Commander Morteza Saffari said, “The existence of threats [against Iran] is [actually] a blessing for us… When the enemy threatens us with a [military] attack, we revive our culture of jihad and martyrdom [and] reinforce it, and our young people enhance their readiness, preparing themselves for [martyrdom operations]… The essence of the culture of jihad and martyrdom is [the ability] to create people who are actually willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of God.” [14]

“Dying in Order to Kill”

The following are excerpts from the Zanan article on women in the martyrdom movement, titled “Dying in Order to Kill,” which was published in the January 2008 issue of Zanan, and on the magazine’s website. [15]

 

 

The cover of the Zanan issue in which the article appeared

 

“A Thursday afternoon. The Behesht-e Zahara Cemetery in Tehran is very busy. We know only that the ceremony of the martyrdom-seekers [istishhadiyoun] is [supposed to] take place behind the martyrs’ plot. Almost none of the passersby know where that is. Many of them do not even know the meaning of the word istishhad [martyrdom]. Nearby,… behind Plot No. 26 – which contains those who fell in the [Iran-Iraq] war, some around 18 years of age and some closer to 30 – 150 chairs have been set out. These are intended for [the men and women] who have come to declare that even when there is no war they are willing to seek martyrdom.

“[This] is the inauguration of the fifth martyrdom unit. The area is abuzz with reporters and photographers, most of them foreign. The male martyrdom seekers are dressed in shrouds, with kafiyyas on their heads and identification tags around their necks. They sit and wait for the program to begin. On the other side are the women, most without kafiyyas, and in the corner [is a booth where] passersby can sign up [for suicide operations].

“An old woman comes by and asks ‘What’s going on here?’ The young woman behind the table replies, “Mother, which [option] would you like to register for? [A martyrdom operation] at one of the four holy sites in Iraq, [a martyrdom operation] against Salman Rushdie, or [a martyrdom operation] against the occupiers of Jerusalem?…

“The martyrdom seekers gradually arrive. At the sound of [his or her] name, each of them steps forward to receive the identification tags and to don the shroud.

“The Al-Usra Choir from Lebanon takes the stage and sings in Arabic. It looks as though, with the exception of the choir itself, nobody among the martyrdom seekers or the audience understands the lyrics. The only word recognized by all is muqawama – ‘resistance.’ At the sound of this word, spoken in a heavy Arabic accent, the martyrdom seekers raise their arms in a gesture which, I once read, symbolizes the oneness of God. The cameras begin to click, [taking] pictures that in a few hours will be circulated around the world.

“The sword writes in letters of blood – muqawama.

“See the blood spill

“Death to Israel

“Become one with this dead body that has the power to destroy [i.e. the dead body of the martyr]

“Death to Israel

“Like [blood]-red death [itself], have no mercy for the enemy’s army “There is no difference between soldiers and settlers. [16]

“…The fifth martyrdom unit is named after the Iranian martyr Nader Mahdavi. [17] The other [four] were named after Lebanese and Palestinian martyrs. The ceremony is attended by about 200 people…

“Several aspects of this convention draw [my] attention. The husky men are all dressed in civilian clothes. Few of them are in military uniform, and none are armed. Among the militant-looking masculine martyrdom seekers [stands] a small woman. It is hard to believe that she, of all people, is secretary-general of the World Islamic Organization Headquarters for Remembering the Shahids, and the organizer of this ceremony. In 1979, she was [among those] who scaled the wall of the ‘nest of spies’ [i.e. the U.S. embassy] in Tehran. She is also publisher and editor-in-chief of Sobh-e Dokouheh, the most conservative magazine in Iran. Today she is the leader of the martyrdom seekers, [both] the men and the women. [Her name is] Firooz Rajai-Far… [Standing] in a corner off to the side, I take the opportunity to ask her a few questions.

“‘We sign up [volunteers] only on particular occasions,’ [she tells me,] ‘because if we [signed up] too many volunteers and exceeded our capacity, we would lose contact with the volunteers and that would not be good. We get a lot of response from the public.’

“According to Rajai-Far, of the 55,000 Iranians who have volunteered for martyrdom operations, a third of them – that is, about 20,000 – are women. [She stresses that] there are no special requirements; anybody can sign up, but when volunteers are classified into units, their abilities are taken into account.

“Rajai-Far stresses: ‘Martyrdom operations are intended for the day [Iran] is occupied or [the day] the official forces of the regime collapse. In other words, if the army and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps forces [ever] fail in their mission, God forbid, and Iran is occupied, then the martyrdom seekers will go into action.’

“Asked whether women need permission from their father or husband to sign up and take part in martyrdom operations, Rajai-Far replied: ‘All fatwas state that defense [of the homeland] is a religious duty incumbent upon [every] Muslim man and woman, and [consequently] there is no need for permission from the father or husband. There is even no need for permission from the Vali-ye Faqih[i.e. the jurisprudent ruling the state]. Among [our] recruits are many married women, and if, during their classification into units, a problem arises that requires obtaining permission from the [woman's] husband or father, she takes care of it herself. We do not interfere in these matters. Families that express willingness to carry out martyrdom operations usually regard this as a religious duty. We have [entire] families that have proudly signed up [for martyrdom operations] – from the seven-year-old child to the 70-year-old grandmother – wishing to walk the path [of the martyrs] as a family.’

“[I asked Rajai-Far:] If you [ever] have to [order] martyrdom operations, will you send a seven-year-old on a mission?’ [She answered:] ‘When we organize [the recruits] into units, we have certain priorities. Priority is given to [those with] physical and military ability, or even knowledge of foreign languages. I believe that readiness [to perform martyrdom operations] is a kind of deterrent [in itself]. That is, if state security is threatened, God forbid, all forces go into action, and if a seven-year-old has the opportunity, even he will defend [the homeland]. Seven-year-old children are already dying in wars. We see what is being done to seven-year-old children in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s not as if war spared children…

“‘The meaning of a martyrdom operation is that in order to hurt the enemy, you carry out a mission that you know will cost you your life. Even a child can carry out such a mission if circumstances require it. History has witnessed such events. During the [Battle of] Karbala, [18][nobody] said that 11-year-olds were exempt from going to war. [People] even asked if a child who fell [in battle] would be considered a martyr, and they were told that yes, he would be considered a martyr.’

“Rajai-Far does not consider age a criterion when it comes to carrying out martyrdom operations.

“[She says:] ‘[The volunteers] register [for our movement], and their preparedness builds up [with training]. The training is identical for everyone, and they all train for similar operations. There are no separate units for women, since our units are not gender-specific, and our outlook regarding men and women is identical. To date, 1,300 people have received the training and have attained the necessary [level of] preparedness.’

“[I asked:] ‘Do you call up individuals under 20 years of age for training?’ [She answered:] ‘No, when we form units we select recruits aged between 20 and 30.’

“[Asked] how the training takes place, [she said]: ‘Much of our training [program] is concerned with cultural and political matters, and with introduction to [various] principles of the world of Islam. [When we talk of] psychological preparation for martyrdom operations, that is, of mental readiness…, we mean [training] in how to infiltrate the enemy ranks… This psychological readiness requires a foundation of ideological guidance. During the Iran-Iraq war, the soldiers trained themselves not to fear death by digging graves and praying inside them. One of the tasks that [the volunteer must perform] in order to carry out a martyrdom operation is to rid himself of his fear of death.

“‘Another part of the training [program] is concerned with preparation for guerilla warfare. At present, we do not provide [classical] military training, because martyrdom operations are not operations of classical warfare, and do not require more than two hours of military training. We have experts who plan the operations, prepare the necessary gear, pick out the route [of advance], and, within two or three hours, train a suitable individual for the mission.’

“[Finally, I asked:]…Have you defined targets [for attack]?

“[She said:] ‘The targets will depend upon the circumstances, but we are ready, and we will go into action whenever the need arises.’

“… Behind the minibus, a young man and woman are donning their shrouds and covering their faces with kafiyyas. I follow them. The woman has not yet covered her face. Her eyebrows are plucked and her eyes are large and beautiful. She is 23 and has a degree in theology. A housewife, she has been married for four years. She and her husband are both martyrdom seekers.

“[I ask them:] Why have you come here today?

“[The woman answers:] ‘I signed up six months ago at the Zaitoun Girls conference. A little while ago we were contacted, and had our first guidance session. Today is the [unit's] inauguration.’

“Which options did you choose?

“‘We have not chosen options yet. We have only declared [our] willingness to carry out martyrdom operations.’

“If circumstances require it, would you be ready to perform such an operation?

“‘Yes.’

“…So if you are called upon tomorrow to perform a martyrdom operation, you will stick by your decision?

“‘After all, it’s not such a strange thing. During the liberation of Khoramshahr [in the Iran-Iraq war], when circumstances changed and [people] saw their family’s honor trampled and their relatives dying right before their eyes, a lot of ordinary people decided then and there to defend [the homeland] and join the war.’

“But that was during the war. There is a difference between [then and now]!

“‘You must always consider [the possibility of] a crisis. If [we] see people being killed before [our] eyes, many of us will wish to carry our martyrdom operations. Perhaps we will be few, but the young people in the streets will undertake to become martyrs… The Iranian youth is capable of many things.’

“What is the meaning of martyrdom?

“‘The [most] important aspect of martyrdom operations is that [they are carried out] when there is an imbalance [of power]. The martyr seeker conveys [the message] that even when our hands are empty, we do not lose our faith and our confidence…’

“Who are your enemies?

“‘Those who plunder the world and do not want peace to prevail in the world… For instance, Israel, which does not want peace…’

“What training have you received so far?

“‘We have only had one guidance session.’

“Where did it take place?

“‘I’m not sure I’m allowed to say. Ask the supervisor.’

“How did you come to know about the issue of martyrdom?

“‘My family, like everyone else, was in the Basij, and participated in the war [with Iraq], but I do not belong to one of the families of the martyrs…’

“Doesn’t the training… take up a lot of your time?

“‘No, martyrdom-seekers and Basij members must devote as much time [to training] as they devote to their studies.’

“When you are a mother, will you still be willing to martyr yourself?

“‘I am sure it will be very difficult, but my husband and I have decided to bring up our children to do the same…’

 

“Iran and the [Palestinian] Intifada

“The [Palestinian] Intifada has [a lot] to do with us. This can be gathered from Iran’s policies and positions on Palestine, and even more directly from television programs and from Iran’s official positions [as expressed] in the news [broadcasts]…

“The book Zaitoun Girlsmentions a religious fatwa which permits Iranians to carry out martyrdom operations. It also presents statements by Ayatollah Hossein Nouri Hamedani, who called for revering Palestinian women martyrs: ‘Circumstances have forced the Palestinian nation to choose martyrdom operations as their preferred strategic method of fighting… Based on [the principles of] Islam, Muslims regard [such] operations as a type of jihad and self-sacrifice for the sake of God, and carry them out honestly and faithfully…’

“In another part of the book, Ayatollah Nouri Hamedani mentions a martyrdom operation carried out by a 22-year-old [Palestinian] mother of two, characterizing it as one of the glorious episodes in the history of Islamic jihad fighters. He emphasizes that ‘the oppressed Palestinian nation (…) has no option but [to wage] intifada and [perform] martyrdom operations, [which are considered] jihad for the sake of God…’

 

“For and Against Martyrdom Operations

“Shi’ite clerics disagree about the status of those who carry out martyrdom operations… The positions of several senior Shi’ite clerics [on this issue] can be found on the Internet. Ayatollah Yousef Sanei referred [to this matter] in a [November 19, 2005] interview with the BBC, which is posted on his website. [He said:] ‘The difference between martyrdom on the battlefield [on the one hand] and bombings and [other acts of] terrorism [on the other is like the difference] between light and darkness, and between truth and falsehood. The two cannot even be compared. Martyrdom and [self-]sacrifice operations are permitted [only] in times of war, in confronting the enemy on the battlefield. Outside the battlefield, no acts of martyrdom, murder, or terrorism are permissible; they are nothing but [forms of] suicide. Murdering others is a terrible sin in Islam. Someone who kills himself while not on the battlefield, and kills even one other person [in addition to himself] – it is as though he has killed the entire world’…

“Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri [also addressed the question of martyrdom on his website.] In reply to a question by blogger ‘Siyasat9,’ he wrote: ‘The ruling on martyrdom operations depends on the circumstances, on the principles of shari’a, and on various [other factors]. Such operations require careful and painstaking consideration. If, at a certain time and place, martyrdom operations are required in order to protect Islam and Muslim lives from military attack by the enemies, and the [martyrdom] operations do not entail killing [civilians or committing other] violations – then [these operations] are permitted. Deciding this issue is the task of the religious experts.’

“Zohreh Sefati, a lecturer at a religious seminary for women, also wrote on the same blog, in reply to a question about martyrdom: ‘The ruling of the primary source [i.e. the Koran] on this issue is that suicide operations [intihar] are prohibited, unless they serve the interests [of Islam], and are used as a tactic and method of deterrence against the infidels. The fact is that when the Muslims are at war with an infidel enemy who is fighting them, various methods of warfare should be employed to stop the attacks. If [martyrdom operations] will cause the enemy to retreat, and there is no other way, then [such operations] are permitted as a secondary [option].’

“Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani was also asked on this blog about martyrdom operations, and he replied: ‘The Palestinian question is a question of defense. Defending the Muslim people, principles or [countries] is always permissible, [using] every means.’ This ruling shows that in answering [the question of] whether Islam permits martyrdom operations, the [religious scholars] considered the conditions that prevail in Palestine more than they considered [the conditions prevailing] in Iran…

 

“The Politicians’ Silence about the Martyrdom Seekers

“So far, not a single high-ranking figure in Iran has taken a clear and definite stance regarding martyrdom operations, especially regarding the participation of women in such operations. A few months ago, when the 2006 Lebanon war broke out, the martyrdom-seekers [tried to] speak out, but the authorities immediately silenced them. The then-spokesman of the World Islamic Organization Headquarters for Remembering the Shahids said…: ‘Two groups that have received technical training have been dispatched to Lebanon via Syria. These two groups, one with nine members and the other with 12, have entered Lebanon in order to assist the [bands] of wounded and embattled soldiers [there], and will not leave until Hizbullah achieves absolute victory over the regime that is occupying Jerusalem.’

“After this report was published, Basij commander Hejazi made an official statement saying: ‘Iran is not sending any military force to Lebanon; there will be no [Iranian] military presence in the [conflict] zone’…

 

“Zahra’s Last Testament

“Her [body and] face are covered, and only her eyes are showing, but it is clear that she is a big girl. She is a single 22-year-old, in her third year at university, and she is eager to join the war and become a martyr:

“‘So far I have only participated in one guidance session,’ [she says.] ‘In the session, they explained about the culture of martyrdom. [They described] the types of operations that we would have to carry out, and [discussed] those who have carried out such operations in the past, [urging us] to be like them. They quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, [who said] that it was necessary to create a network of martyrs, and that such a network was essential for the state. I registered two years ago. It took them a year to contact me.’

“What are you doing here today?

“‘We had our first session a week ago. Today they gave us our identification tags and asked us to submit our last testament…’

“Zahra has [indeed] written a last testament. [It says]: ‘Throughout my life, my goal has been to become a martyr, and now I have managed [to attain this goal]. My father fought on the front [during the Iran-Iraq war], and I too am eager to become a martyr and to fight on the front. Had I been alive during the [Iran-Iraq] war, I would have surely gone to fight on the front. Perhaps [back then] I would not have gone, but today this is my heart’s desire…’

“‘My other goal is to destroy the enemies in the event that war breaks out, God forbid, and Iran or some other country is invaded, like Iraq was attacked.’

“[Zahra also told me:] ‘They told us that if [Supreme] Leader [Khamenei] rules that jihad must be waged, [the martyrdom seekers] will be sent to [perform] martyrdom [operations]…’

“[I said to her:] I wonder about [your level of] readiness. Do you even know what a martyrdom operation is?

“[She answered:] ‘It’s just like in Palestine. They strap explosives [to your body], and then you attack in some location where the enemies gather, for instance in the Zionist settlements. If [one of us] is selected, he must go [and carry out the operation].’

“Have you reached the stage where you are ready [to do this]?

“‘Yes.’

 

“The Martyrs of the Mine Fields

“Hamid Davoudabadi, writer and expert on the [Iran-Iraq] war, [told me], ‘Some [operations] during the war were martyrdom operations. [There were incidents] in which 40 children swept a mine field in order to set off the mines and clear the way for [the soldiers] who followed. Before setting out, these children hid for several hours behind an earth rampart, to avoid being hit by a bullet… One of them told me: “If you are hit by a bullet you don’t count as a martyr.” Preserving one’s life is a commandment in Islam. But these children who spoke this way all stepped into the mine fields and became martyrs.’

“Davoudabadi explained the essence of martyrdom: ‘It is very important to consider this issue, and to ask ourselves why a person would come to the point that he kills himself in order to hurt the enemy and save his people. The root of the matter is that when a person is under siege, he has no choice. In war, there is the oppressor and the oppressed, and that is why such operations are carried out. The Palestinians [suffered] 50 years of Israeli violence before realizing that it is possible for one of them to kill [himself], [in order to] inflict graver harm on the enemy. [In a martyrdom operation], we lose one person [but] kill hundreds of [the enemy]…’

“Davoudabadi stressed: ‘The first [Iranians] who carried out martyrdom operations received religious authorization [to do so] from the Imam [Khomeini]. They were Shi’ites, and acknowledged the authority of the ruling jurisprudent. At that time, the ruling jurisprudent was Khomeini, and it was he who gave them religious authorization. Back then, there were those who regarded martyrdom operations as mere acts of suicide… Some of them expressed their concern to Khomeini, and he told them: “It is definitely allowed, it is definitely allowed, it is definitely allowed.” However, he set out conditions under which martyrdom operations were considered licit, [saying that] civilians must not be hurt in these operations.’

“[I asked Davoudabadi:] Are these conditions being met [today]?

“‘In Lebanon, the martyrdom-seekers displayed great sensitivity, making sure to time their operations in such a way that no civilian would be in the vicinity. In one case, there were some children playing nearby, [so the martyrdom seekers] gave them some chewing gum and chocolates, and sent them away on some excuse. Those who wish to condemn martyrdom operations obviously state that they [cause] civilians to be killed. [It is true that] on some occasions and in some places, civilians may be accidentally hurt. [Attacks] from the air, for example, inevitably result in the death of civilians. But in [planning] martyrdom operations, all aspects can be considered [in order to make sure that] children and women are not killed. According to data published by the enemy, 95% of the Israelis are soldiers. [In any case], all [Israeli] civilians are armed.’

“The fact that they are armed makes them soldiers?

“They are paramilitary… In an area populated by Muslims, they build four houses inhabited by Jews, and give them guns. [Then these Jews] kill [Muslims] under the pretext of defending their homes and families. The areas populated by Israelis are like army camps. A martyr who blows himself up among people lining up for the bus knows that early in the morning these buses are packed with Zionist soldiers en route to their bases.”

 

 

*A. Savyon is Director of MEMRI’s Iranian Media Project; M. Nissimov and Y. Mansharof are MEMRI Research Fellows.

---

[1]Fars (Iran), January 28, 2008.

[2]For an interview in which Rajai-Far states that she has signed up for martyrdom operations, see MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 181, ” The Internal Debate in Iran: How to Respond to Western Pressure Regarding Its Nuclear Program,” June 17, 2004,

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA18104. For an interview in which Rajai-Far condones suicide operations, see MEMRI TV Clip No. 736, “On the Iranian Movement of Martyrdom Seekers”, July 2, 2005, http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/736.htm. For an interview in which Rajai-Far threatens suicide operations against U.S. forces in the Gulf, see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1378, “Top Iranian Military Commanders: In Case of Attack on Iran, We’ll Target U.S. Troops in Gulf; U.S. Warships ‘Have No Maneuverability and Are Easily Sunk’; Iranian Suicide Squad Commander: We’ll Carry Out Suicide Operations in Gulf Countries,” December 6, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP137806.

[3]See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 181, ” The Internal Debate in Iran: How to Respond to Western Pressure Regarding Its Nuclear Program,” June 17, 2004,

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA18104.

[4] Sharq (Iran), June 5, 2004.

[5] Iranian Channel 1 TV, May 2, 2008.

[6]Farda (Iran), January 29, 2008.

[7]See MEMRI TV Clip No. 782, “Iranian President-Elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Is There Art that Is More Beautiful, More Divine, and More Eternal than the Art of Martyrdom?” July 25, 2005, http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/782.htm.

[8]ISNA (Iran), February 20, 2008.

[9] Parto-ye Sokhan (Iran), February 6, 2008.

[10]See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 945, “Iran’s New President Glorifies Martyrdom,” July 27, 2005, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP94505.

[11]See also MEMRI TV Clip No. 906, “Iranian Animated Film for Children Promotes Suicide Bombings,” http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/906.htm; MEMRI TV Clip No. 1648, “Israeli Villains Assassinate Abu Jihad and Harass Lebanese, Leading Young Man to Commit Suicide Bombing in an Iranian TV Movie,” (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1648.htm.

[12]See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 407, “Iran’s Response to Western Warnings: ‘First Strike,’ ‘Preemptive Attack,’ Long-Range Ballistic Missiles, ‘Asymmetric [Guerilla] Warfare,’” November 28, 2007, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=IA40707.

[13]Fars (Iran), October 29, 2008.

[14]Aftab (Iran), May 3, 2008.

[15]The Zanan website has since been blocked to access from inside Iran. However, the article was also posted on the website of Iranian journalist Manuchehr Honarmand, who resides in Europe, (www.khandaniha.eu/items.php?id=244). Recently, a slightly modified version of the article was posted on the Zanan website, now accessible only from outside the country (http://www.zanan.co.ir/social/000822.html ).

^[16] The word “settlers” refers to Israeli civilians, who according to the official Iranian line are all illegal settlers.

[17]Nader Mahdavi was an IRGC naval commander who died in a 1987 suicide mission against the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf.

[18]The battle in 680 in which Ali and 70 of his supporters were killed by the Omayyad Caliph Yazid bin Muawiya.

Weapons of War – 5.30.2008

The objective of War, last I checked, is as Clausewitz said the “continuation of politics (Politik) by other means.”  If we accept this, and I certainly do, then we must also accept that in war, one of the ways which the Politik is achieved is by killing your enemy. If that is the case, then why do we abide by this nonsensical ruling, courtesy of the 1899 Hague Convention?

Laws of War : Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

This came to my attention because of this article, Army, Critics Debate Choice of Bullets. This debate has been around for some time, with many “experts” on either side proclaiming the legitimacy of their opinion or “study”. I don’t know enough about firearms to render an informed decision as to the lethality of the 5.56 M855 round. My own personal opinion is that bigger is better, but only to a point. My dream weapon would be the IMI Tavor, chambered in 6.5 Grendel, but that’s just me.

To get back on topic, this line caught my eye:

Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Again, why do we adhere to this? The Maryland State Police use .40 caliber Smith & Wesson hollow-point ammunition in their standard sidearm. Why? Because when you shoot someone, you want them to go down, and not get back up, plain and simple. The U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps are still using 9 mm ball-point ammunition, which is an inferior round to a .40 caliber hollow-point bullet.

In terms of assault rifle rounds, you want something that will kill your enemy. Compromises have to made between weight of heavier ammunition, and the increasedkickback, but lethality should be the prime motivator in choosing which weapons and ammunition types to equip your military – not adhering to an antiquated treaty that places unrealistic and foolish restrictions on your military. Does anyone ask if the mujahidin’s use of the 7.62 for the AK-47 flouts any treaties or violates a Law of War? Of course not, so why should we not adapt to the conflicts of a new world and be free to select a better, more lethal ammunition?

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator