I had a very interesting conversation with one of my best friends, a senior law enforcement officer. Let me first explain: he thoroughly understands the global Islamic jihad expansion and its spreading tentacles into America — as evidenced by an eighteen-year-old’s recent guilty plea for conspiracy to support ISIS in Manassas, Virginia. What frustrates my friend is the campaign of agitation for agitation’s sake. He completely understands the whole “draw Mohammed” mantra, but he challenged me to ponder if that’s the best approach. And so I told him I’d write about that.
Those of us who’ve served in the military and been involved in planning and executing combat operations know there are five forms of maneuver: turning movement, infiltration, penetration, envelopment and frontal assault. Now, even those of you who’ve never served can look at those five means of attack and determine the one that’s least desirable. Yep, the ol’ frontal assault, which we called in the world of tactical planning — high diddle diddle, straight up the middle, right into the strength of the enemy. One of the things you must be able to do when attacking the enemy is assail their weakness, find gaps to exploit, get inside their decision cycle, reduce their options and make them react. I must admit, the Republican party needs a course in battle tactics — or just read Sun Tzu’s Art of War.
I understand the fundamental western civilizational right to free speech, but I want to assault the enemy in a means by which they cannot be viewed as a victim. And let me be very clear, it angers me that these jihadists believe they can issue a fatwa against any American. But, I want to outline how I’d use the other four forms of maneuver to educate the populace and agitate the enemy. Here are the points I believe we should be stressing regarding Islamism in an effort to agitate through education.
First, many of us have seen the bus advertisements and billboards that state Abraham, Moses and Jesus are prophets of Islam, right? OK, then why aren’t we challenging this very false narrative and assertion along chronological and theological aspects? Consider that Islam wasn’t introduced into the world until approximately 610 A.D., by Mohammad who, as historical documents report, first converted his first wife, Kadesha. Now, how could Abraham, Moses and Jesus have been messengers those many years prior for something that didn’t even exist? I’d love to get some good ‘ol down home southern Baptist preacher on a stage with an iman, mullah or cleric and force them to explain that drivel. What would be revealed is in Islam, they just believe everyone’s been misguided and lost. Their belief system completely dismisses any previous faiths. OK, now the islamapologists and coexist crew are going to refute what I just said. Remember, I’m not the one running advertisements claiming Abraham, Moses and Jesus as prophets of Islam. And yep, Abraham had two sons — one by Hagar (Ishmael) and the other by Sarah (Isaac). What I find ironic is that the descendants — Jews and Arabs — are half brothers.
Sadly however, the Old Testament, The Torah, references Ishmael in Genesis 16: 11-12 (New International Version):
“The angel of the Lord also said to her: “You are now pregnant and you will give birth to a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.”
Now why would God tell Moses to write that, unless He kinda knew what would come?
And theologically, it is night and day between what Jesus taught and what Mohammed did. Christianity is based upon personal salvation. Islam means submission. Now, yep, Christianity does advocate surrender of one’s will to God’s perfect will, but getting to Heaven has nothing to do with killing anybody or getting chicks in some sexually promoted paradise. So, let’s have that debate about Abraham, Moses and Jesus being prophets of Islam.
Second, speaking of Mohammad, after his Hijra and departing Mecca for Medina, he linked up with some fellas who weren’t like Robin Hood’s merry men. History records that Mohammad’s first combat raid was the Nakhla raid, circa 622-623 A.D. From that point on, he led some 30-33 combat raids and operations. If you relate the corresponding verses of the Koran, you’ll find the violent turn — “instill terror into their hearts.” We also need to comprehend the Arabic term, “nakeesh,” which means abrogation. See, folks, Koran’s latter verses supersede the previous ones, yet all verses are considered the words of Allah given to Mohammad — so you’re not supposed to refute. Islam’s Koran is a truly duplicitous, hypocritical document that means whatever the speaker wants it to. All for the sake of another term, “taquiyya” — meaning Muslims are permitted to lie to non-Muslims, infidels, for the sake of furthering Islam. Consider the relevance of the Treaty of Hudaibiya, circa 626 A.D., where Mohammad entered into a negotiated agreement with the Banu Qurayza to not attack Mecca — actually, it was because he lacked military strength. The treaty was nothing more than a delaying tactic, for Mohammad broke it, attacked Mecca (circa 628 A.D.), and ordered all males of the Banu Quarayza tribe beheaded, in what’s known as the Battle of the Trenches.
Hmm, kinda reminds me of the Iranian nuclear negotiations; after all, the Hadiths articulate Mohammad’s traditions, and his actions are regarded as those of the perfect man. The perfect man who married a six-year-old and consummated their nuptials when she was nine. Funny, you just don’t hear much from Hillary Clinton about women’s rights in the Muslim world. And why isn’t the American gay community assaulting the Islamic sharia law punishment for gays and lesbians? Nah, it’s easier to attack bakers, florists, photographers and pizzeria owners.
Let’s debate why the symbol of Christianity is a cross and the flag of Saudi Arabia displays the sword of Mohammad and a Koranic verse.
Lastly, we should debate about the real crusaders — advocates of the Caliphate. See, after Mohammad consolidated his gains in Mecca, he issued a letter to Byzantine Emperor Heraclius with a very simple message — convert, subjugate or die. Well, that happened (circa 628/629 A.D.), but it eventually happened in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople — what today is called Istanbul. See my video here where I school a Koran-shaking Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) representative with a short history of Islamic hegemonic designs and assaults against western civilization — back at a 2011 Pompano Beach, Florida town hall meeting.
So here we are today in the 21st century, and no one’s running around in white robes with a red cross shouting “God wills it,” but we certainly have 7th century savages and barbarians shouting “Allahu Ahkbar” as they behead, crucify, rape, sell women into slavery and commit genocide — following the traditions established almost 1,400 years ago.
My point is we don’t need the frontal assault tactic to agitate the global Islamic jihadist movement; we have history and truth on our side. The Islamo-fascists have allies and accomplices in the progressive socialist left — Obama administration PSD-11. But we can defeat them both, armed with facts and truth — agitation by way of education. I challenge anyone to refute what’s been written here. We don’t need sensationalist actions to defeat the ideology of the jihad. We just need to be armed with the truth and use it to infiltrate, penetrate, envelope and turn the enemy — force them onto the defensive, disrupt their decision cycle and battle plan (the explanatory memorandum) and proceed onto victory.
I’m not condemning anyone else’s strategy or tactics. However, as a professional combat arms officer, I never liked frontal assaults or fair fights. And that’s why my good friend U.S. Marine Corps 1st Sgt (Ret) Jim Reinfinger has the right maxim, “If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, it’s all because your tactics suck.”