The Ultimate Guide To Terror (A Respected Muslim Finally Says What Needs To Be Said)

Convention Lecture | April, 2004 | Haim Harari

[Southack]

"Second, the US still has to contend with China AND Chinese sponsored fronts around the world. As he already offered, some forms of Islamic terror have communist affiliation."

Yes and no.

China is at a cross roads. On the one hand, they want Taiwan and international respect. On the other hand, they want prosperity and advancement.

In their remote province of Xinjiang, they are at war with an Islamic rebellion. On their frontier, they occupy a part of India's Kashmir, share a border with a nutcase in North Korea, nuclear super-power Russia, and have been stood down by a few million Taiwanese.

If they go to war against Taiwan, Russia, or India, they face international isolation, trade sanctions, and perhaps even open war with the West, as well as lose their biggest trading customer, the U.S...and they'd still be faced in Xingjiang with precisely what Russia is up against in Chechnya.

What they want, of course, is to use nutcases like North Korea and Osama Bin Laden to distract and "pacify" the U.S. in regards to Taiwan so that Taiwan falls without a shot being fired.

But such a bluff can only be carried so far. Even if China completely sides with Osama, the rebellion in Xinjiang will continue. That's quite a price to pay for losing your biggest trading partner.

So China is at a cross-roads. Will China choose Osama (or to continue their bluff), or will they ally with the U.S. against the same sorts of people who are waging war against America, Israel, and Russia?

Note carefully that China is trying to forge friendships with both Israel and Russia. This is a hint of where they may very well go in the future.

Why wage war with a nuclear armed, billion-plus population of India? Why piss away their largest trading partner in the U.S.? What is to gain for China by carrying their current pro-Osama bluff too far?

[Jeff Gordon]

Poverty doesn't cause terrorism. Islam causes terrorism.

Islam also causes poverty. I am not saying this in jest. It is true. I have seen Islamic brodcasts dealing with exactly this point.

ALLAH FUBAR

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

Bump.

[rageaholic]

Naturally. If you have three constantly-pregnant pieces of female property who are not permitted to work, and you live in a stone-age theocracy, you're gonna be poor as dirt.

[Carry_Okie]

What they want, of course, is to use nutcases like North Korea and Osama Bin Laden to distract and "pacify" the U.S. in regards to Taiwan so that Taiwan falls without a shot being fired.

You are leaving out China's extensive relationships in Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South Americas. Their clearly apparent willingness to develo[ maritime logistica capability, work through the likes of Messrs. Lula & Chavez, as well as fomenting domestic insurrection here (with the complicity of the fifth column in our universities) are routinely overlooked, both strategically and tactcally.

Why wage war with a nuclear armed, billion-plus population of India? Why piss away their largest trading partner in the U.S.? What is to gain for China by carrying their current pro-Osama bluff too far?

World domination, however foolish or illogical it might be, has always had its attractions.

[AdmSmith]

read this.

[Gritty]

Here is one Muslim who seems to get it. He makes a lot of sense, although he does not address that nearly all Muslim regimes and large numbers of indigenous Western Muslim populations will have to be dealt with as well before this war is over. This is not just about neutralizing Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

The reason is they, and the populations which rule and inhabit them, are Muslim. The entire pathology of backwardness and stunning oppression exhibited here springs from that poisoned well.

[Southack]

"World domination, however foolish or illogical it might be, has always had its attractions."

Not even remotely possible by any non-U.S. nation.

The sheer size of the American economy, nuclear arsenal, chemical arsenal, biological arsenal, and conventional military rules out any rational consideration of global domination.

At best, China can control its region, though the sheer size and might of India's economy, navy, nuclear arsenal, and population brings even that possibility into extreme question.

China has lost its last two ground wars: its invasion of India in the 1960's and its invasion of North Vietnam in 1979.

In contrast, China has had some serious success growing its economy and peacefully trading with the world.

Going to war with either Taiwan or India will risk nuclear retaliation (even without the U.S.) against Beijing and the Three Gorges Dam...as well as the obliteration of China's entire economy due to all of its manufacturing being on the coast where it can't protect its own infrastructure from counter-attacks.

Thus, China lives in a region of powers such as Japan and India that it may very well never come to dominate. And if China can't dominate its own home region against its local regional rivals, then it is in no position to even *think* about global domination.

It would be lucky to get its 18 nuclear ICBM's past America's new national missile defense shield...and even the mere attempt would end the lives of 1.4 billion Chinese in retaliation.

[2banana]

The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so even if Israel would have joined the Arab league and an independent Palestine would have existed for 100 years. The 22 member countries of the Arab league, from Mauritania to the Gulf States, have a total population of 300 millions, larger than the US and almost as large as the EU before its expansion. They have a land area larger than either the US or all of Europe. These 22 countries, with all their oil and natural resources, have a combined GDP smaller than that of Netherlands plus Belgium and equal to half of the GDP of California alone. Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers. The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago. Human rights are below any reasonable standard, in spite of the grotesque fact that Libya was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights commission. According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates. The total number of scientific publications of 300 million Arabs is less than that of 6 million Israelis. Birth rates in the region are very high, increasing the poverty, the social gaps and the cultural decline. And all of this is happening in a region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the next wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area, which developed, at some point in history, one of the most advanced cultures in the world.

An excellent read. Excellent data.

[Bennett46]

Please provide a link for this excellent commentary.

I would like to be able to send this on to many friends and to quite a few resistant progressive acquaintances.

Thank you for posting this.

[Finny]

Wow -- thanks for posting this! This is the most important, vital thing I've read on Free Republic since I signed up. THANKS.

One thing I'd like to know .. who is this guy? Is he Muslim, or a Jew? What company did he speak to? I can't help but hope he's a Muslim. What really fries me is that it shouldn't matter -- what he says here is right on and eloquent, clear-sighted, humble. It shouldn't be discounted if the speaker is a Jew. But by many people, it would be.

[nuconvert]

Very Good.

Where's the URL?
What's with the commentary in parentheses? Is he Jewish or muslim?

[Bob J]

Major FR Announcement!

National March Against Terror

[Carry_Okie]

The sheer size of the American economy, nuclear arsenal, chemical arsenal, biological arsenal, and conventional military rules out any rational consideration of global domination.

How much of the chemical, biological, or nuclear arsenal can we really use? The only basis for which we have them is for deterrent value, to prevent like kind. Unless this isn't the America I stand for, they aren't offensive weapons, that is, unless you are advocating preemptive use of WMD. If you are, you should say so.

Going to war with either Taiwan or India will risk nuclear retaliation (even without the U.S.) against Beijing and the Three Gorges Dam...as well as the obliteration of China's entire economy due to all of its manufacturing being on the coast where it can't protect its own infrastructure from counter-attacks.

India yes, but they can take care of themselves. Taiwan... do you really think a US President would initiate a nuclear response if China attacked Taiwan? Really?

Not a prayer. You clearly don't understand the impotence of power.

Thus, China lives in a region of powers such as Japan and India that it may very well never come to dominate.

Thus nothing. China doesn't want to dominate Japan; they want to destroy it. That's easier.

And if China can't dominate its own home region against its local regional rivals, then it is in no position to even *think* about global domination.

False premise. First, I'm not talking about now, or even ten years from now, but perhaps thirty years out. If we are still exhausted and embroiled after trying to tame 1.3 BILLION Muslims, how much treasure and firepower will we have left for China?

Here's a clue: The US military arsenal was nearly depleted after Kosovo. We are running massive debts now. We haven't dealt with a quarter of the Islamic threat. We are pulling troops to cover Iraq now and making concessions to globalists (who want nothing more than to abet our demise as a sovereign nation) to get paltry help. We are accumulating enormous debts in front of the retirement of the baby boom. Our balance of payments is seriously out of whack. I don't think our long term prospects are that good unless we make serious domestic reforms, else we will not remain a dominant power. Meanwhile, our social and intellectual institutions (our crappy schools) are headed in the opposite direction. The Chinese know all of that, which is why the are only too happy to provide nuclear technology to Pakistan via their North Korean surrogates, , tie us up covering Taiwan, continue to deepen their penetration of the Western Hemisphere, and build a world class manufacturing and engineering infrastructure. They are patient. They have cash.

IMO, your position is sheer hubris.

At best, China can control its region, though the sheer size and might of India's economy, navy, nuclear arsenal, and population brings even that possibility into extreme question.

Why would they bother rousing India? Fighting a land war across the Himalaya is crazy from either of their perspectives without massive air or sea lift capability (which China has, but India doesn't.

It (China) would be lucky to get its 18 nuclear ICBM's past America's new national missile defense shield...and even the mere attempt would end the lives of 1.4 billion Chinese in retaliation.

ICBMs from China are the least my worries and nuclear war is far more survivable than you depict (as the Chinese know since our own experts went there to show them how... thanks to RINO, Nixon). Unless we are going to inspect every container ship on the high seas, we have no idea whence a nuclear or biological attack may originate from ships spread out all over the planet and in our ports. Our JIT economy with its food supply lines all over the world doesn't carry the inventory to sustain even a minor interruption. We aren't at all prepared for a conventional attack, much less an unconventional attack, from either a military or a civil perspective, much less economic. Once such a domestic strife is initiated, with a possible deal for the American Southwest in it for Mexico, what President will push the button when dealing with a domestic insurrection? How much of our law enforcement and domestic military would it take? We'd be sitting ducks at that point for a nuclear attack.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, there are a lot of reasons to include more than simply Iran, Syria, and Lebanon in a list of objectives. The particular omission of Pakistan in that list is especially egregious. In the short term, ESPECIALLY considering the source of conflict (namely the public indoctrination in violence and hatred being fomented by the Saudis), the author is absolutely correct to cite that we cut off the money, but never explained how to accomplish that tactical objective. That is why I emphasize privatizing regulation of access to domestic energy sources as the critical first step. Restoring our economic integrity while debilitating theirs (until the Muslims clean up their act) is absolutely essential to winning the long battle, a task that you (and the President) clearly underestimate.

[lodwick]

Yep. and bumap.

[Bob J]

Major FR Announcement!

National March Against Terror

[FateAmenableToChange]

I hope I wasn't the only one who read the opening paragraphs and started doing a Snopes check on this guy. It reads way too good to be true, reads like a westerner wrote it, and any references to "I got it from a source at an unidentified multi-national corporation" immediately sets my urban legends alarm bells ringing.

Fortunately, there really is a Haim Harari at the Davidson Institute. If it's a hoax, it's a really, really good hoax. And he appears to be Jewish.

[The Californian]

bttt

[Southack]

The sheer size of the American economy, nuclear arsenal, chemical arsenal, biological arsenal, and conventional military rules out any rational consideration of global domination. - Southack

How much of the chemical, biological, or nuclear arsenal can we really use? The only basis for which we have them is for deterrent value, to prevent like kind. Unless this isn't the America I stand for, they aren't offensive weapons, that is, unless you are advocating preemptive use of WMD. If you are, you should say so." - Carry_Okie

Oh good grief. You are paying so little attention that you are going to cause me to type my fingers off. First of all, we've already used our nuclear (ww2 Hiroshima, Nagasaki), chemical (WW1 Mustard Gas), and biological (ww1 Anthrax) arsenals for offensive operations long before you were likely even born.

Second, my point in mentioning those primarily defensive arsenals was to show incontravertable evidence that the U.S. can't be dominated by any other power.

Can't happen... simply because we possess them in such vast quantities.

Thus, the entire notion...the whole concept that any other nation could rationally seek out global domination in the next 50 to 100 years is the stuff of PURE Grade A science fiction.

If you want to get nuked, gassed, and bugged to a degree that not even the biblical book of Revelations could describe, then simply try to dominate the U.S. militarily.

[jla]

fyi