Blueprint Of Failure - The US State Dept. Backed Creation of a Terrorist Base in S.Philippines

NOTICE: In light of the recent escalation of violence in the Philippines with a 'peace' process ongoing, I publish this article penned almost a year ago (Oct 2012) which was almost completed, but I didn't get the chance to finalise and post until now.

Oct 2012: The US State Dept. has just released some depressing news. After many centuries of successful resistance, the Philippine government has decided to surrender; to enter into negotiations with Islamic terrorists, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), in order to create a foothold in the Southern Philippine province of Mindanao. 

To read Hillary Clinton's statement, all one need do is replace the names and places, and it sounds like something out of the Israel-Arab 'peace' process (a 'peace' that claimed more lives than the actual war).

"The United States welcomes the announcement of the framework agreement between the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. This agreement is a testament to the commitment of all sides for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the southern Philippines. The next steps will be to ensure that the framework agreement is fully implemented. We encourage all parties to work together to build peace, prosperity and greater opportunities for all the people of the Philippines." Hillary Clinton

Unfortunately, despite the fact that many unsuspecting people in the Philippines might feel a sense of relief at this announcement (as I did back in 1993 when seeing Israel and the Palestinians reached a historic peace deal), the sad fact is that Muslims do not enter into negotiations unless it is to their advantage, to buy time if their side is too weak to fight, and the peace deals are always broken. They have always done this and always will. Since the Prophet Mohammed's time, peace treaties have been used as tactical devices in order to gain an advantage over an enemy. The only times peace agreements are kept is when it suits the leaders (ie in the case of Egypt, Mubarak kept the peace agreement with Israel as Egypt wasn't strong enough to take on Israel. Had Mubarak started a war with Israel, his regime would have been destroyed and Mubarak would have lost US aid besides. It was therefore tactically advantageous to him to keep peace).

From left: Rabin, Clinton and Arafat

Reuters reports that this is the first time in a 15 year period a roadmap has been agreed between the government and the terrorists to create an autonomous region by 2016.

In typical appeasement fashion, the notorious news agency attempts to whitewash aggression by the Muslims and defensive actions by the government and claims: "it is hoped, both sides will keep their sides of the agreement" which is an insulting statement, as if there's any danger of Manilla breaking any agreements.

This kind of talk is straight out of the State Department's peace-process playbook. It is dangerous because it puts a legitimate government of a sovereign state on an equal level to terrorists. In other words, it elevates the terrorist's legitimacy and brings down the government's legitimacy.

Second, the State Department will insist that neither side speak badly of each other in their radio and TV broadcasts (if the Muslims in S.Philippines actually have radio broadcasts. I'm sure they do).

The State Dept. will tell you this is in order to move both sides forward. If one side or another is demonising the other side, then it makes peace that much more difficult. This is another danger. What happens is that the non-Muslim news service not only doesn't say anything bad about the Muslims, it starts to lie about them and ignore their acts of terror. This is extremely serious as it affects free speech and freedom of information. Which is obviously a threat to democracy/freedom/safety.

There have been several times over the last few years when a full war has been waged on the streets of Israel, and the media have remained silent. This is in order not to anger people but means they are putting their lives at risk if they go to certain areas.

Psychology

In terms of the emotions in a situation like a 'peace' process, it is important to remember two things. First, non-Muslims tend to feel a sense of magnanimity in these circumstances; most non-Muslim people and/or leaders wouldn't mind the aforementioned whitewashing of Muslim behaviour if it means moving towards peace. Second, as negotiations are a tactical part of waging war against the infidel (Mohammed said 'war is deceit'), it states in the Quar'an that Allah has placed a softness in the hearts of the infidel which the believer (Muslim) must use to his advantage.

But as someone who's seen and lived the pain of the Israeli 'peace' process, all I have to do is look at what happened within Israel and simply predict what will happen in the Philippines. Here are any number of scenarios:

1. All of this talk of negotiations will remain just that, talk.

The Muslims, in order to continue waging jihad against the sovereign state, will create another terror group (or use a currently existing Islamic terror group, Abu Sayyef?) to continue attacking and carrying out acts of terror. All the while, the MILF who are negotiating with the government will claim they can do little to control this 'breakaway' faction.

The truth is that this is simply a tactical game, and Muslims are masters of psychological warfare. The MILF might say more concessions could help calm the situation. The complete opposite is true. The more concessions given, the more this will encourage the terrorists because it shows a weakening of the Philippine government's will.

2. Peace will be achieved, but will be broken after a few years (under ten). In Israel after the signing of the Oslo Accords, terror chief Yasser Arafat broke off negotiations to return to war, six years after agreeing to negotiations. On top of this, leftist Israeli leaders (such as Shimon Peres) who received many benefits from the US in order to appease the terrorists actually helped arm the terrorist Palestinian 'police' force to 3 times the agreed size. Add to that, the misguided notion by then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (1996-99) that he could bribe the Palestinians by lulling them into the lap of luxury by helping to develop their economy and standard of living. Nothing worked.

The Muslims 'Palestinians' simply used the 'peace' process to give them time to re-arm and train a whole new army of fighters.

The Second Intifada (really just a continuation of the jihad against the Jews) lasted from 2000 to 2005. More than 1600 innocent Jewish lives were lost. But the 'peace' processors in America weren't finished. Under the leadership of George W Bush (no less), Israel was forced to give up Gaza and even remove its own citizens from there. As many Filippinos know all too well, the result has been tens of thousands of rockets fired by Hamas into Israel.

This effectively rewarded a five year terror war. From Israel's perspective, it thought it was being generous. From the Islamic viewpoint, it saw the tactic of violence as reaping many rewards, which encouraged them to do more.

A Clash of Civilisations

The sad fact is that Islam isn't compatible with any other religious group on this earth. Normal people want peace, Muslims want war. Muslims think dying is good, we think dying is bad. And we certainly don't want to kill anyone else, unless it is to defend ourselves. Unfortunately, the Islamic religion is based on war and proof of the Musilm's ability to fight and kill unimaginable numbers of people can be witnessed in the chronicles of the Islamic invasions of India.

US State Dept.

The Philippines, like Israel, has received much from the great alliance with the USA. Naturally, the US has also received much in return from these friendships. But it is important to know that US foreign policy is run by 'Arabists', American diplomats totally enthralled by the Arabs and their oil. These are the kinds of people who accuse Jews in America of having dual loyalty (more loyalty to Israel than to America), but in fact their loyalty is to the Arab oil-rich Gulf states; the countries who fund the Taliban and al Qaeda and who want to bring America down.

Unfortunately, America has far too many problems at the moment and the good people of America can't cope with another issue right now. Outside friends need to understand that while Americans are our friends, the American diplomatic corps cannot be trusted. They will push 'peace' upon us as a weapon to make the Gulf Arab nations happy. Because through 'peace' processes, Islam can defeat far more powerful armies and succeed in conquering us...

Update July 27th 2013:

Philippines: bombing, six people died

"According to local police agencies, at least 6 people were killed and 28 others injured in a bomb blast outside the commercial center in the city of Cagayan de Oro, Mindanao province, southern Philippines."

The campaign to terrorise and ethnically cleanse the S.Philippines of non-Muslims continues despite 'peace' talks. This should tell you everything you need to know about the Muslim's intentions for 'peace'.

Update July 30th 2013:

Philippines bishop calls for resumption of peace talks

"...The bishop added: “Violence does not solve problems; it makes our problems worse. The death, for example, of a soldier or a rebel makes orphans out of children and widows out of mothers.”

He continued: “We join other peace advocates and strongly urge the Philippine Government and the National Democratic Front to return to the negotiating table and resume the peace negotiations as soon as possible."

The Reverend is a man of Gd and therefore a man of peace. He doesn't wish to escalate things (unlike the imams in the south, no doubt). He wishes to calm things. Such well intentioned statements are exactly the kinds of language I warned about above.

The Philippines is in a state of war and doesn't want to acknowledge this, just like Israeli diplomats. Because if they acknowledge there is a war on, they'll have to fight. And also as mentioned above, this is something we non-Muslims try to avoid.

Unfortunately with Islam, there is no choice. You either fight or don't fight. You either win or lose; and if you lose with Islam, you lose everything (to use the words of Pat Condell).

The jihad in the Philippines has been going on for centuries. The Muslims will never give up unless the Philippines (and Israeli) government decides to win this war once and for all. But there is an obvious gorilla breathing down our necks in the form of the US of A. 

The Philippines, like Israel, is of vital strategic importance to US foreign policy. Therefore, the Arabists at the State Dept. effectively waging diplomatic war on its Asian ally at a time when China is throwing its weight around the region makes no sense whatsoever.

My advice to the Philippines gov (as well as to the Israeli gov) is to build your resources so that if in an emergency, your country will be able to function independently of America.

Nuclear Iran and US foreign policy

In Dore Gold's The Rise Of Nuclear Iran, Gold predicts a nuclear strike isn't the first threat the world will face. The most likely scenario is that Iran would use their nuclear weapons as an umbrella, a shield of protection while Hezbollah and others carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

How can we know this for sure? Because it has already happened with Pakistan.

No sooner had Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons (a significant failure of US foreign policy) did al Qaeda make its first strike. In May 1998, Pakistan carried out its first successful nuclear test. By August of the same year, al Qaeda had simultaneously struck two US embassies in East Africa, killing more than 200 people and injuring many more. This was also the same year Osama bin Laden declared jihad on America.

Of course, the reason American presidents and diplomats have remained silent on Pakistan's role in all this is because the US is attempting to keep Pakistan within its sphere of influence. Thus the US could hardly call Pakistan a major problem in the worldwide fight to defeat Islamic terrorism, and still expect Pakistan to cooperate with the US.

And for anyone doubting the connection between al Qaeda and Pakistan consider where OBL was assassinated. If you know your history of the creation of the Taliban and al Qaeda, you'll know that America, along with Saudi petro-dollars went into funding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against Soviet invaders. All monies were channeled through Pakistan, and funds were only given to those militants with a similar religious belief. Ahmed Shah Masoud of the Northern Alliance, for example, received nothing from the Pakistanis, despite having done his fair share (or more than his fare share, if you believe his own accounts) of repelling the Russian invaders.

IRAQ: A FAILURE OR THE KEY TO VICTORY?

I often wondered why in the war on terror the allied forces only seemed to target countries whose connection to Islamic terrorism were secondary: Afghanistan and Iraq. What about the state sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and to a lesser extent, Iran?

On the face of it, this seemed illogical. Although Afghanistan is obviously where the Taliban ruled, al Qaeda had many training bases and OBL was hiding, it was Pakistan, with Saudi petro-dollars, that was funding the madrassas. It was Saudi Arabia that was funding the construction of mosques worldwide with the Wahabi-compliant imams that now do their share of the Islamic burden, churning out terrorists (such as the Boston Bombers). Thus fighting in terrorist 'backwaters' seemed to be like standing at the end of a long conveyor belt, shooting the terrorists as they came off the production line, but leaving the factory and its machinery unscathed...

But by 2003, Iraq had been under heavy sanctions and also happened to have colossal oil reserves big enough to rival the Saudis. Even though in terms of state sponsorship of terrorism, Iraq had taken part in terror operations against the US, it was a long way down the list of priorities in terms of terrorism prevention. Take out al Qaeda, take out the state sponsors of terrorism and you'd likely never hear from Saddam again. However, just taking out a country like Saudi Arabia wasn't so easy because of Pakistan's nuclear umbrella.

The possible way around all this seems to have been a little bit of chess. Take out Saddam. Rebuild Iraq, lift sanctions, get her oil pumping again which would help to rebuild the country, and this would also have the effect of significantly reducing the Saudi revenues, and cut off not only al Qaeda but Pakistan's main source of finance as well.

In the last few years we've seen exactly this come to fruition. Iraq has significantly cut into the house of Saud's oil profits with the result that the Saudis are panicking. It's not only that the Saudis are having to share world oil profits with Iraq, it's that Western countries are also finding ways of becoming energy independent (thanks in large part to Israeli innovations in the technique of extracting oil from rock, known as fracking). As a result of this, the usual idiots have come out with scare stories about fracking, chief among them actor Matt Damon.

But there is one major problem along this road: Barack Obama. By taking out Iraq, the Americans were removing the single largest buffer to Iranian hegemony in the region and throughout the world. But by pulling out of Iraq so soon, Obama effectively gave Iraq to Iran. Iraq, a neighbour of Iran, is teeming with Iranian agents. Tehran would only need to give the word, and the Iranian agents working as bodyguards to many Iraqi officials would carry out their duties, whether this means assassinations or anything else.

The other problem is that Iraq has been helping Iran skirt sanctions. This means that it can simply carry on with its nuclear program. With America's poor history when it comes to stopping nuclear proliferation (and don't forget the fiasco over N.Korea acquiring nukes), it's a safe bet that if left to Obama, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. Certainly, there isn't much room for interpretation when watching how Obama delays and plays Israeli PM Netanyahu, promising to deliver bunker busting bombs (Israel has been waiting since 2009), and then doesn't. The latest proof of Obama's intrasience when it comes to the Iranian threat is getting the EU to boycott the bits of Israel it doesn't like as a means of pressuring Israel to come to the negotiating table with the people that vow to wipe the Jews off the map. 

After more than 10 years of failed negotiations with Iran, this leaves us only with the military option.

Oil has obviously been a boon for the Islamic world and we've seen the resurgence of Islamic power/terrorism in conjunction with the resurgence in their oil revenues. The US has only had a decade of wars and is already critically weak economically (partly because of those wars, but mostly because of the left). It does not take much imagination to see what the world will be like if the 1400 year old sunni/shia rivalry occurs under the immunity of a nuclear umbrella.

Israel is our last hope.