Prelude to the antichrist - Part 16

Western Civilization’s Unrelenting Expansion – Part 9

I’m still not clear on why Osama bin Laden was murdered by Seal Team Six and buried at sea. Why wasn’t he captured and brought back to the United States (or Guantanamo Bay as appropriate) where he would stand trial for his involvement in 9/11? If we go back to the first joint declaration by the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, which officially noted the mass murder of European Jewry, the allied powers resolved to prosecute Nazis who were responsible for the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. Although, they were initially divided over trials, because some political leaders had pushed for summary executions instead, they eventually agreed to court proceedings. The allies did not want those who were guilty of war crimes to be able to piously assert that their admissions of guilt were extracted from them under duress.[i]

By summarily executing bin Laden, the United States forfeited a golden opportunity to demonstrate to the world that it is a nation that respects the rule of law. By forcing him to stand trial, it would have further established that its motivations for capturing him were fueled by a desire for justice and not a need for vengeance. The transparency of a trial would have also allowed the public to peer into the bowels of the Military Industrial Complex.

 The day after the announcement of bin Laden’s death, the headline in the Washington Post’s lead story read, “U.S. forces kill Osama bin Laden; Obama: ‘Justice has been done.’” However, was justice really served? It seems dubious to the Rt. Reverend Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, England who said, it is “much more reasonably viewed as an act of vengeance or revenge. It a failure of the whole world order that nobody in a position of responsibility trusts that we have systems of justice to cope with such a vast set of crimes as this man is responsible for.” The former mayor of London, Ken Livingston, attacked the killing, saying we should have put bin Laden on trial: “Are we gangsters or a Western democracy based on the rule of law?”[ii]

Trying bin Laden would have also given the United States an opportunity to evaluate its own criminal laws. High profile prosecutions test the limits of America’s constitutional protections, and in the case of bin Laden, it would have certainly been one of the most closely examined criminal proceedings in American history: the public; the media; Congress; and the international community would have been riveted to every word of the court’s transcript. This type of scrutiny shines such a disinfecting light on the prosecution, it imposes built-in limitations on the prosecution’s ability to play loose with the facts, and it often exposes the injuries that other suspects have experienced in previous trials.

 Americans should take comfort in the fact that they live in a society that respects the rule of law. Blind Justice is so pure, that she would rather see Ted Kaczynski, Jeffrey Dahmer or the DC Sniper, John Mohammed, set free than to be convicted in violation of their Constitutional rights. This is not to suggest that these men, who were convicted of heinous crimes, were in any way innocent. I simply offer that Justice should be distilled from the impurities of bias and prosecutorial misconduct. However, it is not so reassuring to understand that too often cases are so skewed against an innocent defendant that a guilty verdict will be guaranteed unless the person charged with the crime has a multi-million dollar defense fund to draw from.

Let us consider for a moment the O.J. Simpson trial where he was charged with the murder of his wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson and her alleged lover, Ron Goldman: If a working-class individual had been charged with the same crime and the prosecution offered the same facts, that man would be serving time in a state penitentiary right now for a crime that he did not commit. However, Simpson’s legal team, led by Johnnie Cochran, proved their client’s innocence in a multimillion-dollar defense effort. Barry Scheck, one of Simpson’s lawyers and a leading expert in the field of DNA evidence, is the co-director of the Innocence Project; an organization that assists prisoners who could be proven innocent through DNA testing. To date, 271 convicted inmates have been exonerated by DNA testing, including 17 who were serving time on death row.

 Scheck has pointed to research that demonstrates that as many as four percent of the DNA matches produced by laboratories are in error. To a victim of a crime, this small discrepancy may be acceptable; however, for those who fall into that four percent error range, everything that they have ever worked for can be destroyed during the space of a 15 minute court arraignment. Focusing on these types of errors is the beauty of a high profile criminal case.

 A criminal prosecution of bin Laden, although not an American citizen, would have certainly tested the limits of our own Constitution by looking at possible systemic problems in criminal prosecutions, whether in state or federal court or before military tribunals. Plus a trial would have diffused much of the criticism and suspicion surrounding the operation. Human nature tends to be more trusting in what their eyes see than in what their ears hear. Considering that the United States Government does not have a sterling record for honesty, and add satan’s resume of deceit to his march for global supremacy (see the introduction to this series, along with Parts 1-6), it does not bode well for those who expect candor from their leaders. Permitting the evidence of September 11^th to be scrutinized by interested parties would have been a noble gesture for a country that seems to be accountable to no one.

The evidence surrounding 9/11, that has been presented to the public, seems to be irrefutable; however a nation that boasts about abiding by the rule of law, should not be hesitant about having its evidence examined and then cross examined. It helps to preserve the accuracy of the historical record, which can often be diluted by the ‘fog of war.’[iii]

 Within hours of releasing information regarding the bin Laden capture, the Obama Administration had to back-peddle from one of its more sensational claims: According to John Brennan, the White House’s counterterrorism chief, bin Laden used one of his wives as a human shield. If it was true that he used his wife to protect himself from the seal assault, it certainly would have been an ironic end to America’s Public Enemy #1. However, within hours, the administration came back and offered a more accurate version of the events—that bin Laden did not use any human shields and that he may not have been armed, which probably means that he was not armed. And if we are to give any credible consideration to bin Laden’s 12 year old daughter, she claims that her father was captured before his execution. If this is true, it seems to suggest that any alleged resistance by bin Laden had been stifled by the seals.

 In the age of WikiLeaks, governments must take extra precautions to refrain from the type of hyperbole that could cause a national embarrassment in the event its falsehoods are exposed. The Obama Administration has had to retreat for cover on more than one occasion over disclosures by WikiLeaks, and a leak that contradicted the administration’s official position on the bin Laden operation would be devastating for a president who is campaigning for a second term. Consequently, although I am not certain how pure its motivations were, it certainly took the appropriate action by correcting the record. However, taking the proper steps to preserve the historical integrity of an operation does not exempt the Obama Administration from further scrutiny. In one of the great speeches in American history, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned…

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together (excerpt from President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, Delivered January 17, 1961).

…to be continued

© 2011 David R. Tolson

---

[i]  International Military Tribunal At Nuremberg, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007069.

[ii] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383106/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Wife-watched-die-White-House-reveals-WASNT-armed.html.

[iii] Fog of War is a term that is ascribed to Carl von Clausewitz which describes the uncertainty in situation awareness experienced by participants in military operations.

Prelude to the antichrist - Part 15

Western Civilization’s Unrelenting Expansion – Part 8

It is impossible to question the motives of one’s country during a time of war without being branded as unpatriotic, or even worse—a traitor. The slightest criticism of President George Bush’s actions, immediately after the attacks of September 11^th, provoked charges of disloyalty and anti-Americanism. Yet, ironically, it was the somnambulant backing of a nation that was under the influence of excessive patriotism that pushed the United States unnecessarily into Iraq. Also, America’s unquestioned support for President Bush’s War on Terror permitted him to authorize illegal, unwarranted wire taps on American citizens with impunity. And in perhaps the most breathtaking departure from the guarantee of Constitutional protection, Americans woke one morning to the USA Patriot Act. (See endnote for a brief outline on how the Patriot Act diminished American rights under the Constitution.)[i]

It should be noted that had Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin not voted against the Patriot Act, it would have passed unanimously in the Senate. This is a graphic demonstration of how our nationally elected leaders, who, by the way, swore an allegiance to the Constitution, are susceptible to wilting under the momentum of blind patriotism. However, an honest debate over the administration of America’s war aims is at the heart of responsible citizenship, and this imposes a greater standard of care on elected officials, because they have a sworn duty to uphold the citizens’ rights granted under the Constitution.

In the case where our governing bodies lack the will, the courage, and the conviction to engage in thoughtful deliberations over questionable policies, it helps to grease the skids for dubious, possibly illegal infringements on the nation’s coveted, Constitutional rights. This is why dissent is often the greatest form of patriotism, particularly when the momentum of a nation’s war aims, tends to censor those who object. Notwithstanding honest debates over this country’s war objectives and policies, most Americans want to see the destruction of the enemy. This is why when the military objectives for victory are met, liberals and conservatives lock arms in celebration.

Osama bin Laden

After President Barack Obama announced to an international audience that the United States Navy had captured and killed Osama bin Laden, there was an undeclared cease-fire in the derisive political climate for roughly 72 hours. Although it was apparent that some conservative Republicans were strained beyond their capacity to suspend animosity towards the president, the murder of bin Laden granted him a temporary respite from opposition.

How fitting it is to end this series—Western Civilization’s Unrelenting Expansion—discussing the capture and death of Osama bin Laden, who had evaded U.S. efforts to capture him for nearly a decade. In a stunning pre-dawn operation, Seal-Team Six, the Navy’s secret Tier One (reports directly to the president) counter-terrorism group, descended upon the one acre compound deep in Pakistan and within minutes captured and killed bin Laden. As news of his reported death began to emerge, there were spontaneous celebrations in front of the White House and in New York City at what has been christened ‘Ground Zero,’ where the World Trade Towers once stood.

If Osama bin Laden was really killed by the U.S. Navy, then why haven’t I been swept up in the patriotic fervor that greeted the news of his death? I mean, I was as horrified as anyone else as I watched the World Trade Towers collapse after terrorists plowed commercial airliners into the symbol of American finance; the survivors of those killed in the attacks notwithstanding. However, two weeks after the president announced bin Laden’s death, I find myself struggling to find solace in his demise. This odd sense of indifference, I’m certain, is due in large part to the massive doses of suspicion that have been injected into my being as I learn more about satan’s keen skill at deceiving the leadership at the highest levels of government, business and religion.

I have often wondered if September 11^th was a strategic bombing campaign by those forces intent on bringing human civilization under global domination. My use of the term strategic bombing does not imply its traditional military description—a military strategy designed to diminish the public will to wage war by bombing civilian targets instead of the military’s land, air, and/or naval forces. Strategic bombing as used in this instance is defined as a strategy to use 9/11 as a weapon to weaken the American public’s innate opposition against any incursions into their Constitutional guarantees. When I consider that President George W. Bush used the mantra of “national security” to obtain dubious domestic and foreign policies during the four year period after the attacks, it heightens my suspicion even further.

The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 over allegations that Saddam Hussein participated in the 9/11 attacks and that he was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. We later discovered that President Bush was wrong on both counts: Saddam neither contributed to the bombings of the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, nor was he actively pursuing a WMD arsenal. Now, I am not here to defend Saddam, but America has an intelligence apparatus that is in some respects unbelievable; therefore, it is very difficult for me to accept the notion that Bush authorized the overthrow of Saddam based on solid intelligence. American intelligence does not make blunders of this magnitude, which begs the question: Why did the United States invade Iraq?[ii] I have my theories, which are beyond the scope of this article; however, as the War on Terror continues to rage, nothing has been done to alleviate my doubts, including the capture of bin Laden.

I can’t be the only apprehensive soul out there after hearing about the killing of Osama bin Laden. If so, will someone please explain to me how the U.S. Military carried out a kill mission in Abbottabad, a city that is nearly 250 miles from the Afghan border, without triggering Pakistan’s early warning system? America’s military could not invade Grenada, one of the poorest countries in the Western hemisphere, without setting off its enemy detection trip wires; so how does it pull off this feat against a nuclear power? Plus, one would think that the helicopter that crash landed on bin Laden’s compound and the subsequent gun fight would have alerted the police, the military school and the military base that were in close proximity of his posh living quarters. This is akin to a burglar breaking into one’s home while everyone is asleep, and then throwing the family’s fine china against a wall without waking up anyone. I know the American military has remarkable capabilities, and the seals who captured bin Laden are the most highly trained fighting force in the world, and considering their technological advantages, they may be the most highly trained unit in the history of warfare. However, even they could not have pulled off a mission the way it has been described by the Obama administration. They’re good; just not that good.

The seals would have to be able to turn water into wine; raise the dead; walk on the waves of a raging sea; and travel back and forth through our space-time continuum in order to sneak that deep into Pakistan and return safely without detection.

Although bin Laden was Public Enemy #1 in the United States, he edged on sainthood within the Islamic faith and many Muslims saw him as a hero in the same pantheon as the Prophet himself. So then, one must ask—“Why did Pakistan give him up, or at a minimum, turn a blind eye to the American gunships?” Yes, Pakistan had to roll out the red carpet for the American Seals to capture, and then kill bin Laden in order for them to return to Afghanistan unscathed after the assault. I do understand the fictional animosity that is being played out between the Pakistani leaders and the Obama Administration. I mean, for Pete’s sake, they just permitted the American military to kill the most famous Muslim in the world; consequently, they must portray themselves as a sovereign power that had been violated by American aggression; and I am okay with that.

Scripted loathing is a tool of diplomacy which the U.S. used in its opposition to the former Soviet Union for more than 40 years. Their theatrical performance on the world stage permitted them both to spend inhumane amounts of money on their war-making capabilities; however, when either one of them were threatened by a formidable foe, they became allies (see World War II). And at the climax of their little 40-year performance, the wall came down and the Russian bear disappeared in the middle of the night without firing one single, solitary shot; violating the first law of nature—survival. At the most basic building-block of society, the leaders of Russia and the Western world are brothers, and in the post-Cold War world, they can do in public what they had always done in private—cooperate. Did anyone really believe that two brothers would ever drop nuclear weapons on one another? This is why the first nuclear weapons were dropped on Japan and no plans had ever been initiated that had Germany as a target.[iii]

Germany’s animosity over the so called Scramble for Africa was the root of both world wars. In 1885 the Western powers met in Berlin and drew up a plan, later called the Berlin Treaty, which offered each nation exclusive, unobstructed access to various regions in the Dark Continent. Germany, not satisfied with its allocation under the terms of the treaty, sought to gain control over additional territories. Great Britain and France, alarmed at Germany’s expansionist aspirations, sought to limit its control in the region, which precipitated the European Civil War, better known as World War I.  

Bin Laden was fighting a different war against the West. While Germany sought to expand its influence and territorial borders in Europe, bin Laden was fighting for something different; the very survival of Islam. According to the Washington Post, the “arrival of U.S. troops in the Middle East, initially deployed in 1990 to oust Iraq from Kuwait, served to focus bin Laden’s ire on the view of the United States as a domineering, corrosive threat to Islam…His deft use of international media helped magnify his message of murderous defiance against Western influences.”[iv] (In Part 8 and Part 10 of this series, I quoted Carroll Quigley, who exposed a clandestine effort by the Western world to destroy the modes of thought and action of every non-Western civilization. And he graphically illustrated in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment that Europeans bearing the culture of Greek, Roman, Aryan and Western Civilizations have destroyed 14 civilizations since the Greek Empire. It should also be noted that the destruction of the Russian Empire (Eastern Orthodox Civilization), which came years after the Quigley publications, also came at the hands of Western Civilization.)

The history of Western Civilization is a narrative of death and destruction, and bin Laden understood that he was fighting for a way of life—Islam—which the Western world has pushed to the verge of the grave. And if one considers the recent wave of dissent, fueled by cries for democracy, that has flooded the Muslim world, Islam may already be dead, and the next of kin is simply waiting for the pathologist’s autopsy report. However, if Islam is not dead, the seduction of the Western lifestyle may be too alluring for the new generations of Muslims to resist. Consequently, it may just be a matter of time before they all turn in their Holy Qur’ans, burqas, Hajjes and other pillars of their faith for iPads, smartphones, fine cars, fast-food, Hollywood, overtime pay, 401k retirement plans, paid hospitalization, tele-Imams and all of the other trappings of living in a Western democracy.

…to be continued

Note: Part 8 of Western Civilization’s Unrelenting Expansion was scheduled to be the final article in this series; however, as a result of the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, I have added two additional articles to the series. I will be publishing the sequel to this article on bin Laden on May 22^nd. Please look for it.

© 2011 by David R. Tolson

---

[i]           Brief comparison of the USA Patriot Act and the Constitution of the United States

• The First Amendment provides for the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble. The Patriot Act permits the U.S. Government to monitor religious and political institutions without any suspicion of criminal activity.

• The Fourth Amendment grants citizens the right to be protected “against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Patriot Act permits the government to search and seize American’s papers and other effects without probable cause.

• The Sixth Amendment entitles anyone accused of a crime to a “speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The Patriot Act permits the government to incarcerate citizens indefinitely without a trial.

• The Sixth Amendment also provides that an accused person has “compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance to council for defense.” The Patriot Act says the government can monitor conversations between attorneys and their defendant clients in federal prison and can even prohibit Americans accused of criminal wrongdoing from accessing a lawyer.

• The Sixth Amendment also says an accused criminal must be “confronted with witnesses against him.” The Patriot Act permits Americans to be imprisoned without being charged, let alone face any witnesses (Jesse Ventura, 63 Documents that the Government Doesn’t Want You To Read, (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2011), p. 12.)

[ii] I have written extensively on the presidency of George W. Bush, so I will not repeat my critique of his eight years in office. However, for those who may be interested in a more detailed examination of the Bush years and his campaign on terror, please see my blog where I publish a 4-part series regarding his administration - http://thepeoplespulse.blogspot.com/2008/02/appraisal-on-bush-presidency-part-i.html (part 1).  Also, my article A Disturbing Update on the War on Terror was published in conjunction with my appraisal on the Bush administration - http://thepeoplespulse.blogspot.com/2008/02/disturbing-update-on-global-war-on.html.

[iii] Some will argue that the bomb was not dropped on German because it had surrendered prior to the bomb being ready for use. However a careful study of the Manhattan Project will confirm that as early as 1943 there were never any plans to drop the bomb on German. America’s war strategy always placed Japan in the crosshairs of the first nuclear weapon, which is why Hiroshima was never firebombed like other Japanese cities, in order to preserve it as a justifiable target for incineration - http://www.rense.com/general90/whyhir.htm.

[iv] “U.S. forces kill Osama bin Laden; Obama: ‘Justice has been done,’ The Washington Post, 2 May 2011, sec A. p. 6.

Prelude to the antichrist - Part 14

Western Civilization’s Unrelenting Expansion – Part 7

>>>WARNING - PLOT SPOILER: If you’ve never seen the movie Crimson Tide, you may want to skip to the end of the spoiler so you do not ruin a great thriller starring Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman.<<<

Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman, two of Hollywood’s all-time greats, teamed up in the movie Crimson Tide, the edge of your seat thriller that takes the viewers to the brink of nuclear holocaust. Denzel plays Lt. Commander Hunter, who must arrest the “gun-slinging” commander of an armed nuclear submarine, Captain Ramsey (played by Hackman), to prevent him from launching an atomic weapon on one of the break-away Russian Republics. As Ramsey is being placed under arrest, he derided Hunter by saying, “You’re way out of your league Hunter. You’re not ready to make the tough decisions yet.”

Not long after Ramsey is relieved of his duties, the U.S.S. Alabama came under attack from a Russian submarine, and a torpedo strike causes flooding in one of the sub’s compartments. While three sailors are in the compartment desperately trying to stop the flooding, Hunter has to make the decision to seal-off that section of the boat or lose the entire sub. His dilemma is obvious—if he issues the order to seal off the compartment, three men will die; however, if he orders his damage control party to get the three men to safety before sealing the compartment, the boat will sink and the entire crew will perish.

After a moment of what appears to be indecision, Hunter, in a voice barely above a whisper, says to his damage control person, Lt. Hellerman, “Seal the bay.” However, Hellerman is pleading with the men in the flooded compartment to come out. Consequently, in a manner more akin to a direct order, Hunter says, “Bilge bay con, I say again, seal the bay.” By now, Hellerman is begging Hunter to give the men more time to come out of the compartment, and it finally dawns on Hunter that he has to make the tough decision with a tone of voice that conveys the urgency of his order: “Lt. Hellerman! You have your orders! Now seal the [expletive] bay before we all go down!”

When Hellerman confirmed that the bay door had been closed, Hunter’s look of resignation that he had just sealed a watery tomb for three of his loyal subordinates buttressed Ramsey’s scorn that he was not ready to make the tough decisions.

_____________________ End Spoiler

According to former President George W. Bush’s recently published book, Decision Points, he authorized the military to shoot down any domestic planes that were acting suspicious after the attacks of September 11th. In fact, it is a matter of much debate whether it was the military which shot down Flight 93, or if the “Let’s roll” story of heroism—which has the passengers overtaking the terrorists—is the authentic account of that fateful day over the skies of Pennsylvania. We may never know the full story of the events that transpired on 9/11, and perhaps the romantic version of the passengers risking their lives to prevent another terrorist attack is true. However, there are times when the leader(s) of a nation must make decisions that will kill people, and often, some of those people are innocent.

Could you make the tough decision that would cost the lives of innocent citizens? If not, then you are not qualified to hold a post that preserves the sovereignty of a nation. It takes more to lead a country than to have the skill to manage a large bureaucracy. There are times when the leader(s) of a nation must make unequivocal decisions that will cost people their lives: plain and simple—there is a time to kill.

To be fair to every president who I have disagreed with, I will concede that there is no risk in criticizing a foreign policy decision from the stress-free environment of my home-office. Consequently, from the comfort of an easy-chair and with the aid of hindsight, I seem to always answer the ills of the world. However, it doesn’t take hindsight to know that it is a breach of natural law to drop a nuclear device on the innocent citizens of a vanquished foe.(1) It doesn’t take hindsight to know that lying to the public that your enemy has attacked one of your naval vessels in order to gain their support for a dubious war is also contrary to natural law.(2) It doesn’t take hindsight to know that if a democracy overthrows another nation’s democratically elected president in order to install a brutal dictator, the citizens of that country will see that democracy as the enemy.(3) It doesn’t take hindsight to predict that if the Western powers spearhead a military alliance that overthrows and then executes Saddam Hussein, over allegations that are later conceded to be false(4), and in similar fashion invade Libya, then other Muslim nations just might feel threatened. Consequently, these Islamic countries may pursue a nuclear arsenal as a defense measure against subsequent Western invasions.

Did President Truman wrestle with the decision to incinerate nearly 200,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or did President Johnson utter a quiet prayer, asking for forgiveness, after he stood before the American public and lied with pious conviction that North Vietnam had attacked a Navy warship in the Gulf of Tonkin? In the introduction of this series, I examined the biblical prophecy where more than one quarter of the world’s population, and perhaps as much as one half, will be killed by evil men whose aim is to seize control of a global civilization. Could you participate with that cabal of men to annihilate large chunks of humanity? These are the tough decisions that evil men must make in their quest for global domination. Although many would find themselves at odds with these choices, it is obvious that some very powerful people see the virtue in these highly questionable pursuits.

Many Western wartime leaders, policy makers and strategists were not born when the Eisenhower administration overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh. And their knowledge of history is too romantic to understand or to care of the implications associated with the Iranian coup. In 1953 Operation AJAX was carried out by the intelligence agencies of the United States and the United Kingdom in order to replace Mosaddegh with the American puppet, Mohammad-Rezā Shah Pahlavi, later known as the Shah of Iran.

Western arrogance may trigger a temporary case of amnesia regarding why it has been so despised in the Middle East; however, Iranians have not forgotten the Western aggression that installed the Shah. The war that is being waged by NATO on the Muslim populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, is a classic demonstration of the violent nature of the enmity between Western Civilization and Islam. This mutual hatred stretches back to the Persian Empire when it was overtaken by Alexander in the 4th Century BC, and there has been fierce hostility since. In fact, Islam is the only civilization that has put the survival of the West in doubt, and it has done it at least twice.

Conflicts between Western Civilization and Islam have been repeated over the centuries like a mantra: Fifty percent of wars involving pairs of states of different religions between 1820 and 1929 were wars between Muslims and Christians. Why has the deadly conflict between Western Christendom and Islam been a recurring theme in history? Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion. Religion is so central to our basic belief as humans, that not only are some people willing to die for their beliefs, but they will also kill if they believe that an enemy is threatening their faith. This is the dilemma that Muslims now find themselves facing—the destruction of nearly 1,500 years of history and tradition by the spread of Western society.

Deeply entrenched in Western society is the Judeo-Christian concept, leading historians, politicians and many citizens to embrace the idea that Western societies are Christian. However, there is a certain disconnect if one embraces the notion that the West is a Christian civilization and then observes the path of destruction that has been left in its wake wherever it has journeyed. It is difficult to reconcile the historical trek of Western Civilization with the philosophy of Christ. He espoused a way of life that not only encouraged His followers to live modestly, while considering the needs of others, but He also required demonstrating love to one’s enemies:

43.Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44.But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45.That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46.For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47.And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so (Matthew 5:43-47)?

The typical Westerner, who worships the meaning of the cross and makes every effort to abide by the precepts of their Christian faith, will most likely consider Jesus’ words above as one of the most famous sermons ever uttered. However, it may be difficult for that same Christian follower to recognize that Western Civilization has a different set of principles that governs its existence, and it does not come from the Sermon on the Mount. From the annihilation of the Native Americans to slavery to the destruction of numerous civilizations to the recent revelation that the United States Public Health System infected soldiers, prisoners and mental health patients in Guatemala with syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases, it demonstrates that America’s allegiance, and by extension Western Civilization’s, comes from a manual other than the holy Scriptures.

The men who worship at the ‘sacred’ altar of Western power are more inclined to knead the values of Western society into every square mile of the globe than to permit the expansion of Islam, or even the true expression of Christianity, which demands loving your enemies and praying for them.

…to be continued

© 2011 by David R. Tolson

[1] Japan was negotiating the terms of surrender with the Allies during World War II prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; however, the Americans demanded an unconditional surrender - http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html. Also, Truman convinced Stalin to break his 1941 non-aggression pact with Tokyo and team up with the Allies to bring a swift end to the war in the South Pacific.

[2] In August 4, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson came before the American people and advised them that hostile forces in the Gulf of Tonkin had attacked a naval destroyer; consequently, he was authorizing the military to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was jeopardized by Communist aggression. However, there never was an attack on the American forces. (There was an incident on August 2, 1964, but Johnson’s claim was that the North Vietnamese had engaged in a second attack.)

[3] In 1953, under the code name AJAX, American and British intelligence forces overthrew the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh and replaced him with Mohammad-Rezā Shah Pahlavi.


[4] President George W. Bush’s motivation for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein participated in the September 11th attacks against the United States, and it was also alleged that he was developing weapons of mass destruction. However, it was eventually conceded that there was no connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks and neither was Iraq actively pursuing a nuclear arsenal.