# Jacksbrat ... read this ... it's a little old But



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

It might give you a little insight into what is happening

Afghanistan was the infancy of a CALIPHITE ...

Dictionary definition of

CALIPH ... successor of Muhammad as temporal and spiritual head of Islam.

CALIPHITE ... the office or dominion of a CALIPH

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE 
By Larry Abraham January 29,2004

The war against terror did not begin on September 11,2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the "Third Great Jihad." They are operating within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of it's existence.

No religion in history grew as fast, in it's infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of it's early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes coerced by the church.

What Islam offered was "the carrot or the sword." If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making.

In the beginning, even the theology was not hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish Prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called "children of the book" ... the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for the former Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading "the word" Islam grew like wild fire, reaching out from Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the "First Great Jihad" and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they firmly established Islam on the Iberian Peninsula.

This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The "Second Great Jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured in to warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in "the ways of the Prophet."

By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any future territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into Sheikdoms, Emir dominated principalities and roving tribes of Nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming it's internal failures on everyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam, which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites.

Wahhabism calls for the complete and total rejection or destruction of anything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds it's most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. It's Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is known as Osama bin Ladin, the leader of the "Third Jihad" who is Wahhabi as were his 911 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.

The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans and programs to "Westernize" his country, along with his close ties to the U.S and subdued acceptance of the state of Israel, the Shah was the soft target.

Remember "America Held Hostage"?

Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the "Great Caliphate."

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally what they call the "Occupied Territory" Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the Jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please note al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, just yesterday.)

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals.

First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam.

Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves.

Third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel.

A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries.

Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies, but to send a message to the Jihadists.

The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison.

The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or Hussein's willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait

What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, worldwide, to "Stop The War". Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little known politician as the thrust point - Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the "Dean Phenomenon".

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the "Hate Bush" crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e., Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.

Should George W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determination resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors; V.I. Lenin admonished&#8230;"two steps forward, one step back".

A couple additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the "advice and counsel" of this despicable little hypocrite.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.

We are in the battle of our lives, a battle which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of "knowing our enemy" the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.

********** End Report **********


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Glad to see that again DecoyDummy people don't have a long enough memory.


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

Sounds like total BS to me. I'm reminded of the ole saying, If you can't dazzle them with briliance, baffle them with Bull Sxxt. This is a baffle job in my books. I believe it's totally fabricated story to justify the evangical belief that they are commanded by God to convert the world to christianity. They're the ones trying to make this into a holy war where we must kill them before they come kill us, and they're trying to use the government and taxpayers money to help them.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Ok ...

I revert back to my question from the other thread ...

One nuke in Chicago and you look like a total BAFOON ...

I promise


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Jacksbrat

The interpretation may not be 100 percent on target, but the from the historical records I have read it is a very well written piece. I am not sure of your agenda jacksbrat, but it is clear you don't want to hear anything that contradicts what you choose to think. It appears you are anti Christian (perhaps pro Muslim), I wouldn't call you liberal they are more reasonable, anti capitalism, do I really need to go on.


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> I revert back to my question from the other thread ...
> 
> One nuke in Chicago and you look like a total BAFOON ...


At least I won't by hiding and shaking in a fraidy-hole somewhere when it hits, foolishly thinking George Bush is keeping me safe while he's making an attack more likely.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The only thing I would complain about is Bush isn't tough enough. The vocal pansies in this nation have held him back, and endangered us. You're a scary person Jacksbrat, if I had any control over homeland security I sure would watch you. You evidently don't like anything about this nation. You hate big companies. I envy them. Of course I realize if they are successful they provide many jobs. The funny thing is liberals hate successful companies.

Good night all.


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

Larry Abraham:

After a brief career working in TV and radio in Seattle area, Mr. Abraham was appointed Executive Secretary of the Washington State Young Republican Federation, a post he held for three years. After leaving to help form the Draft Goldwater Movement in his home state, Mr. Abraham became a widely recognized and popular speaker on college campuses across the region on the topic, "*Why I am No Longer A Liberal.*"

http://www.insiderreport.net/biography.html

Sounds like just another right wing spinster to me.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

jacksbrat said:


> Sounds like total BS to me.


This my friend, is the EXACT definition of burying your head in the sand. Before you write this off as BS, you should take it upon yourself to research the facts. Its the intelligent thing to do. One of the most important things I've learned is just because you dont like the facts, doesnt mean you can ignore them.

But again, "for the sake of argument," if the radical muslim sect isnt actually out to kill us for not being muslim, why then do they want us dead?


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> One of the most important things I've learned is just because you dont like the facts, doesnt mean you can ignore them.


Look who's talking.


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> But again, "for the sake of argument," if the radical muslim sect isnt actually out to kill us for not being muslim, why then do they want us dead?


Good question. Why don't we ask them? Why don't we believe Osama bin Laden when he says it's because of the our permenant millitary basses in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> Why don't we believe Osama bin Laden when he says it's because of the our permenant millitary basses in Saudi Arabia.


Because if you kept up with the FACTS.........we don't have any permenent and never did have a permenent military bases in Saudi Arabia,
So we know that can't be it.


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> Because if you kept up with the FACTS.........we don't have any permenent and never did have a permenent military bases in Saudi Arabia,
> So we know that can't be it.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm

_Ever since the 1991 Gulf war, the US has had about 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia - a figure that rose to 10,000 during the recent conflict in Iraq.

It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident - blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks - to justify violence against the United States and its allies._

10 years isn't permenent?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

jacksbrat said:


> > One of the most important things I've learned is just because you dont like the facts, doesnt mean you can ignore them.
> 
> 
> Look who's talking.


Plan to make any specific points, or are you using the "I know you are but what am I?" liberal defence tactic?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> 10 years isn't permenent?


No it is not. It is a joint agreement that allows us to use their bases with their permission. If you recall and if I'm correct Saudi Arabia refused to give us that permission for the invasion of Iraq. I know they refused to allow us to go to the aid of the Kurds up north when Saddam attacked them in 1996. According to the Pentagon officials all US attack aircraft was removed from Saudi territory in 1999.

BTW, not only is your link three years old but coming from the BBC......need a lot of salt on any meal they produce.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

By the way what's our force strenght in saudi now...........today, not five years ago,but today!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

By God ol Jack found some common ground amongst you guys. It's like the good ol days when if there was no one else to fight you fought your brother. :lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

jacksbrat said:


> Sounds like total BS to me. I'm reminded of the ole saying, If you can't dazzle them with briliance, baffle them with Bull Sxxt. This is a baffle job in my books. I believe it's totally fabricated story to justify the evangical belief that they are commanded by God to convert the world to christianity. They're the ones trying to make this into a holy war where we must kill them before they come kill us, and they're trying to use the government and taxpayers money to help them....
> 
> ...Good question. Why don't we ask them? Why don't we believe Osama bin Laden when he says it's because of the our permenant millitary basses in Saudi Arabia.
> _________________


Jacksbrat

I've sat back and read your posts for the past few days as others have tried to engage you in some honest questions. So far they have provided facts, opinions and websites about our current Middle East policy.

From reading your replies (above), most of us here gather that at the very least you are not Christian correct? I personally don't care either way, however I think this is beginning to look like some Muslim spin BS.

For the record, where do you stand on all these different policies you are trying to disparage? Do you really believe that our government policy should be to take it on Osama's word that he is just an angry man at the bases in S. Arabia? OK...let's just do as he demands and remove them! I mean he has been a super sweet guy up to this point. I can't remember him ever saying a cross word about anything except those military bases.

Should we instead move most of our military forces from S. Arabia into Israel? Would that satisfy him you believe? It's just S.Arabia he's angry about correct?


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> From reading your replies (above), most of us here gather that at the very least you are not Christian correct? I personally don't care either way, however I think this is beginning to look like some Muslim spin BS.


So, now I'm a Muslim. Better check my phone for a wire tap. Actually, I'm probably just as much "christian" as you are. I'm just not a republican molded christian. My bible says things like "Turn the other cheek" "feed the poor" "forgive your brother 7 X 70 times", and "the meek shall inharit the earth". But it also says "the stars will fall from the sky" and "the moon gives off light", which makes me question the validity of it all. I just can't buy the notion that we have to help God rid a world he created of muslims. Replacing one stupid religion with another isn't the answer. I can't help but believe this war with Iraq is a personal vendetta and has nothing to do with terrorism. Huge profits are being made as our country's resorces are being drained and the hatred for us will make terrorism worse, not better.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> I can't help but believe this war with Iraq is a personal vendetta and has nothing to do with terrorism. Huge profits are being made as our country's resorces are being drained and the hatred for us will make terrorism worse, not better.


I agree jack, many people feel that way. In a situation where the gov is using the Military to protect big business than big business should pay for their protection. Over the table where we can all know about it.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

jacksbrat said:


> > But again, "for the sake of argument," if the radical muslim sect isnt actually out to kill us for not being muslim, why then do they want us dead?
> 
> 
> Good question. Why don't we ask them? Why don't we believe Osama bin Laden when he says it's because of the our permenant millitary basses in Saudi Arabia.


Once again Jackbrat you sidestep the questions presented to you. You'd rather quote some cute spin...

For the record, where do you stand on all these different policies you are trying to disparage? Do you really believe that our government policy should be to take it on Osama's word that he is just an angry man at the bases in S. Arabia? OK...let's just do as he demands and remove them! I mean he has been a super sweet guy up to this point. I can't remember him ever saying a cross word about anything except those military bases.

Do you believe for example that if we were to pull out of Saudi Arabia and move the forces to Israel or Qatar for example, that he would simply issue a statement "Hey guys thanks for playing. I'm happy now. Sorry for the earlier misunderstandings."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I'm probably just as much "christian" as you are





> Replacing one stupid religion with another isn't the answer.


You better do some proof reading, your accomplishing hypocrisy in a single paragraph. Your very transparent jacksbrat.



> the meek shall inharit the earth


That might be true, but I would just as soon it wasn't six feet of it in my face anytime soon.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

RIGHT ON!!!!


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

We were talking in an earlier post about trying to reason or negotiate wth the irrational.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Aaaahhh did Jack let something slip he shouldn't have, what a goof, sooner or later they all show their colors.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Good work Plainsman


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

jacsbrat,

Your artical you wanted everyone to read was dated 29 April 2003 (3 years old).
How many troops do we have in Saudi *today*?
You don't remember, don't know or just flat out lying? :eyeroll:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

He must have found a site where people were more agreeable to his anti-American views. :huh:


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

I can't believe anyone could be so ignorant as to have sympathy for these radical muslim towelheads. Maybe Jacksbrat should go over there and reason with them. He's so much more knowledgeable than the rest of us, I'm sure he could negotiate his way out of a beheading. 
Our political correctness craziness is getting out of hand in the US also. We seem to walk on eggshells so as to not offend anyone. Do Americans get that same treatment on foreign soils? I think not. If you don't like it here in the good ol' USA, then move to a different country.
MOB


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

AMEN! :beer:


----------

