Big picture 'trans-asian axis' thread, my personal take on the situation globally

[Avvakum]

I've given this some thought; 'what exactly is the enemy, the 'trans-asian axis', that we face today? I've considered it as a two-tiered alliance system, with a central core around which certain groups are allied to some in the central core but not others or each other necessarily. This alliance system I see as primarily religious and then geopolitical in nature. My core group of the TAA as I conceive it is;

Saudi Arabia

Pakistan

Qatar

UAE

Bahrain

Neo-Nazi International

North Korea


While the secondary peripheral group of those affiliated runs the gamut of organizations of every ethnic, religious, and cultural sort. Decades of Oil Money has bought a great deal of patronage.

By far however, the main alliance I see is that of and within Sunni Islam of Islamic organizations with the patronage of Oil Sheiks, and racist organizations bent on a restoration of a Nazi-run Europe. Those aren't exclusive, as the Nazi International has become quite philo-islamic.


China isn't on my list, nor is Russia. This will prove to be perhaps the more controversial part of my thread, that China and Russia aren't in the Alliance. They aren't, in fact, they are the TAA's primary targets after America, for takeover and exploitation and then destruction. They may not be our friends, and may themselves wish us harm, but they are bound with us for our common destruction by the TAA.


I gave this a lot of thought, and I forced myself to challenge a number of long-held ideological beliefs of mine, but since I know I don't have all the answers, this is the way I see things at present; an alliance of sinister occult forces that once were behind the Third Reich, and of Wahabbi/Salafist Islam.

By all means think about and examine what I propose, and I'm welcome to any and all critiques and suggestions as to why one nation instead of another, etc... As long as we all understand that circumstances and alliances are changing so rapidly that some old opinions have to be re-examined. I reject the 'Golitsyn Thesis' as an example as being no longer tenable as an idea, while accepting more and more a view like Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations'. Atheism and Communism motivate few today politically, while Islam as a new revolutionary ideology seems to gain more and more steam.

[American Patriot]

In our estimation (and Ryan, correct me if I'm wrong) Russia and China HEAD the list.... because they are first and foremost, large communist countries who do deal with the lesser countries you already mentioned, and they have the clout, power, and location to be able to assist quietly, each of those other nations to fund terrorism and other activities against the US.

That Islam is against the US is a given.

That Communism is against the US is a given.

That Socialism is against the US is a given.

Thus ANY country that leans in those directions by default, is against the US to one degree or another.

[Toad]

Years ago when this board started, and before that on Anomalies, I thought the Axis was primarily Russia, China, and Iran. Or that's what I remember it being defined as at that time. You remember that, Rick? Or am I misremembering?

[Malsua]

China, Russia, North Korea. Iran would be a satellite of any of them at any particular time.

[American Patriot]

Years ago when this board started, and before that on Anomalies, I thought the Axis was primarily Russia, China, and Iran. Or that's what I remember it being defined as at that time. You remember that, Rick? Or am I misremembering?

You're remembering it rightly, and see Mal's post.

[American Patriot]

Iran has, since 1979 been a pain in our asses. I've been there. I've been to the region because of them. They took Americans hostage for 444 days and I have had to deal with Iranians face-to-face in both America and in Egypt.

They weren't, as Mal points out, on the orginal list, but they have been there, in out faces for as long as I have been involved in paying real attention to politics. They are a thorn in the side of America, Israel and the West. While I wouldn't advocate "wiping them out" like they do Israel, I certainly advocate kicking their asses, not cooperating with them, and watching them like Hawks.

[Avvakum]

Years ago when this board started, and before that on Anomalies, I thought the Axis was primarily Russia, China, and Iran. Or that's what I remember it being defined as at that time. You remember that, Rick? Or am I misremembering?

Well, Yossef Bodansky had a large list of Islamic countries working together with Russia and China, and I tend to agree that Russia and China are working together against America and the West, and working with Islamic-Majority countries, but in reply to Rick i'd say that these countries aren't exactly Communist either. The Ideology is gone, replaced with Oligarchism, while the antipathy towards the West remains. Come to think of it, 'Oligarchism' is what we too have, here in the West, as witness with Harry Reid and the Bundy Ranch situation for example.

I'm not saying that I don't hate and fear Russia and China and what they've become, but International Communism is dead while Islam is very much alive. As the destruction of Russia and China (preferably in a war with the West) is a goal of Islam, how can we see to it that responsible governments truly nationalist come to power in Russia and China while seeing that they view the threat from Islam properly? And if that doesn't happen, how do we truly support freedom in places like the Ukraine?

[Avvakum]

Iran has, since 1979 been a pain in our asses. I've been there. I've been to the region because of them. They took Americans hostage for 444 days and I have had to deal with Iranians face-to-face in both America and in Egypt.

They weren't, as Mal points out, on the orginal list, but they have been there, in out faces for as long as I have been involved in paying real attention to politics. They are a thorn in the side of America, Israel and the West. While I wouldn't advocate "wiping them out" like they do Israel, I certainly advocate kicking their asses, not cooperating with them, and watching them like Hawks.

Now see, Iran does concern me, and I wonder if this crisis with ISIL as i've said before, isn't something to give Obama an opportunity to run into the arms of Iran without the American public becoming too concerned?

At any rate, I see old-style Leftism as being almost dead, replaced with identity politics of pure racism and sexual degeneracy in a kind of 'spoils system' here in America. Other than that, with the rise of Barack Obama it appears that in effect the 'TAA' is right here.

[Avvakum]

See, 'Oligarchism' seems to be the common thread uniting all these assholes, Islamic or not, as witness this quote concerning Oligarchism in Russia;
Russian Federation

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union on 31 December 1991, privately owned Russia-based multinational corporations, including producers of petroleum, natural gas, and metal have, in the view of some analysts, become oligarchs. In May 2004, the Russian edition of Forbes identified 36 of these oligarchs as being worth at least $1 billion each.^[9] A report by Credit Suisse in 2013 states that :Russia has the highest level of wealth inequality in the world, apart from small Caribbean nations with resident billionaires. Worldwide, there is one billionaire for every USD 170 billion in household wealth; Russia has one for every USD 11 billion. Worldwide, billionaires collectively account for 1%– 2% of total household wealth; in Russia today 110 billionaires own 35% of all wealth."^[10]
Still, equality in Russia is better than in UK or USSR, see List of countries by income equality.

[Avvakum]

Nothing I have seen or read since I originally put this thread up has changed my opinion; I explicitly reject a 'Trans-Asian Axis' as such, but instead posit a confluence of wealthy Salafist groups and individuals with certain international Neo-Nazi and Fascistic elements, and that these groups are in an implicit if not explicit alliance with each other. Their main enemies are (in no particular order);

1. The United States of America

2. The Russian Federation

3. Israel

4. Great Britain

5. Serbia

6. China

7. Iran

Some of us may not like some of the nations on this list, and I know I don't like a few on this list myself, but it stands to reason that every nation on this list should stand together against the Fascists and Salafists and take action to put down this threat before the tidal wave drowns each Nation seperately. We came together as Nations to fight in World War Two, an uneasy Allliance, but for God's sake why can't we do it now?

[Avvakum]

Making sense of the Islamic State's actions;

New Islamic Caliphate Declares Jihad on … Muslims

by Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPage Magazine
July 18, 2014

Print

Send

RSS

Share

Seventh-century jihad against "apostates and hypocrites"

The new "caliphate" of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—the Islamic State, formerly "ISIS"—recently made clear that it means to follow in the footsteps of the original caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Sadiq (632-634), specifically by directing its jihad against fellow Muslims, in Islamic parlance, the "hypocrites" and "apostates," or in Western terminology, "moderates."
This came out in the context of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, with some Muslims asking the newly formed "caliphate" when it would launch a jihad on the Jewish state.
The Islamic State's response? "Allah in the noble Koran does not command us to fight Israel or the Jews until we fight the apostates and hypocrites."
On one of the Islamic State's question-and-answer websites, some asked why it was "not fighting Israel but instead shedding the blood of the sons of Iraq and Syria." The new caliphate responded:

The greater answer is in the noble Koran, when Allah Almighty speaks about the near enemy. In the majority of verses in the noble Koran, these are the hypocrites, for they pose a greater danger than the original infidels [born non-Muslims, e.g., Jews and Christians]. And the answer is found in Abu Bakr al-Sadiq, when he preferred fighting apostates over the conquest of Jerusalem [fath al-Quds], which was conquered by his successor, Omar al-Khattab.

Twenty-first century jihad against "apostates and hypocrites"

There's much to be said about this response, rife as it is with historical allusions.
First, it is true. After the prophet of Islam died, a great number of Arabian tribes that had submitted to his rule by becoming Muslims—the word muslim simply means "one who submits"—thought they could now renege, and so they apostatized in droves. This sparked the first Ridda, or "apostasy wars," waged by Abu Bakr al-Sadiq, who became the first caliph on Muhammad's death in 632. For nearly two years, till his own death in 634, his caliphate's entire energy was focused on waging jihad on all the recalcitrant Arab tribes, forcing them by the edge of the sword to return to the fold of Islam.
Tens of thousands of Arabs were burned, beheaded, dismembered, or crucified in the process, according to Islamic history, especially by the "Sword of Allah." It was only afterwards, under the reign of the second caliph, Omar al-Khattab (634-644), that the great Islamic conquests against the "original infidels"—those non-Arab peoples who had never converted to Islam, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc.—took place.
Islam's war on the apostate, so little known in the West, figures prominently in Islamic history. Indeed, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential Islamic clerics today, while once discussing the importance of killing any Muslim who apostatizes from Islam on Al Jazeera, correctly stated that "If the [death] penalty for apostasy was ignored, there would not be an Islam today; Islam would have ended on the death of the prophet."
In short, and as the Islamic State is now arguing, the first and greatest enemy of Islam—the "nearest" enemy—is the "apostate" and "hypocrite," for they are the most capable of subverting Islam from within.
This phenomenon of "pious" Muslims fighting and killing "lukewarm" Muslims, or Shia and Sunnis fighting one another—while the original infidel stands by or gets away—has many precedents throughout history. For example, in its response, the Islamic State further justifies not fighting Israel by saying:

The answer is found in Salah ad-Din al-Ayubi [Saladin] and Nur ad-Din Zanki when they fought the Shia in Egypt and Syria before [addressing] Jerusalem. Salah ad-Din fought more than 50 battles before he reached Jerusalem. And it was said to Salah ad-Din al-Ayubi: "You fight the Shia and the Fatimids in Egypt and allow the Latin Crusaders to occupy Jerusalem?" And he responded: "I will not fight the Crusaders while my back is exposed to the Shia."

All of this history quoted by the Islamic State is meant to exonerate the new caliphate's main assertion: "Jerusalem will not be liberated until we are done with all these tyrants, families, and pawns of colonialism that control the fate of the Islamic world."
Some observations:

• Although the Islamic State is trying to suggest that only autocrats like Syria's Bashar al-Assad are "apostates" and "hypocrites," and that most average Muslims are eager for Sharia, the fact is, a great many of the world's Muslims fit under this rubric. The largest revolution in history, Egypt's June 2013 anti-Brotherhood revolution, attests to this. Thus the new caliphate's jihad is not just against "tyrants," but many average Muslims as well, as the organization's carnage in Iraq and Syria attests.
• The Islamic State's declaration justifying non-confrontation with Israel is not winning it much popular support in the Arab world and is naturally portrayed as a copout. It further validates the popular Arab narrative that the United States is siding with the Islamists to create havoc in the region; to have the various sects (Sunni vs Shia, Moderate vs. Islamist) fight each other in order to divide and weaken the region. Thus Dr. Ahmed Karima, a leading professor of Islamic jurisprudence in Al Azhar, said that the Islamic State's position concerning Israel proves that "it is a creation of U.S. and Israeli intelligence" and that the new caliphate "is the biggest of all hypocrites."
• Alternatively, others, especially Islamists, appreciate that the Islamic State is patterning itself after the first caliphate of Abu Bakr—hence why its first caliph chose that name—because it finds itself operating in the same circumstances. Nascent and without much support, it first mission, like Abu Bakr, is to re-subjugate Muslims to Islam. Only then can it focus on the "original infidels."
• While this approach may be temporarily good for Israel (and all infidel states), in the long run, a fully functioning and unified caliphate with "reformed" Muslims next door is not a pretty picture. After all, the Islamic State is not exonerating the infidel, but rather saying his turn will come once the caliphate is capable of an all-out assault. At best, it's a temporary reprieve.

---

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

[Avvakum]

The true reality of the situation;

The Caliphate Means Constant War on Us on a Scale Not Yet Seen

By Raymond Ibrahim on July 15, 2014 in In the Media

By Enza Ferreri
Liberty GB
While the British government is making its own citizens pay for the jihadis allowed to return to the UK from Syria and Iraq, both in terms of money – through the £1.1 billion cash injection for defence announced yesterday, £800 million of which will fund an extra investment in intelligence and surveillance to deal with the threat of terrorism – and in terms of intrusion and greater state power – through emergency laws to monitor phone and internet records “to stop terrorists” –, people hear of the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East without the media – with few exceptions – providing any explanation of its real significance.
In Islam, only a caliphate has the authority to declare offensive war on infidel countries. That’s why Osama bin Laden was so keen on it and called for Muslims to “establish the righteous caliphate of our ummah”, after Abdulhamid II’s Ottoman caliphate was abolished by the Turkish Republic of Kemal Ataturk in his secularisation (short-lived) attempts in 1924.
And that’s why jihadis always explain their acts of terrorism in terms of defensive war, as a response to the infidel’s armies occupying Muslim lands, for example.
Egyptian-American scholar of Islam and Middle East history Raymond Ibrahim over 3 years ago explained the caliphate concept and predicted the re-establishment of a caliphate. If, as in science, accurate predictions confirm the validity of the theory from which they derive, we must take his words very seriously:

The very existence of a caliphate would usher a state of constant hostility: Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate is obligated to wage jihad, at least annually, to bring the ‘disbelieving’ world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia law. Most of what is today called the ‘Muslim world’ – from Morocco to Pakistan – was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate begun in Arabia in 632.
A caliphate represents a permanent, ideological enemy, not a temporal enemy that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions – economic or otherwise. Short of agreeing either to convert to Islam or live as second-class citizens, or ‘dhimmis’ – who, among other indignities, must practice their religions quietly; pay a higher tax ['jizyah']; give way to Muslims on the street; wear clothing that distinguishes them from Muslims, the start of the yellow star of David required for the Jews by the Nazis during World War II; have their testimony be worth half of a Muslim’s; and never retaliate against Muslim abuses – the jihad continues.
A caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish – before people realize what it represents and try to prevent it. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

Another US expert on Islam, Robert Spencer, has recently written:

And now it [the caliphate] is here, although it is by no means clear, of course, that The Islamic State will be viable or long-lasting. If it is, however, the world could soon be engulfed in a much larger conflict with Islamic jihadists even than it has been since 9/11. For in Islamic law, only the caliph is authorized – and indeed, has the responsibility – to declare offensive jihad against non-Muslim states. In his absence, all jihad must be defensive only, which is why Islamic jihadists retail laundry lists of grievances when explaining and justifying their actions: without these grievances and a caliph, they have to cast all their actions as responses to Infidel atrocities. With a caliph, however, that obligation will be gone. And the bloodshed in that event could make the world situation since 9/11, with its 20,000 jihad attacks worldwide, seem like a harmless bit of ‘interfaith dialogue.’

Offensive jihad to force all the world to submit to Islamic law is a duty for the ummah (the worldwide Muslim community), and no amount of media whitewashing can change that. The source to consult is not The New York Times but the Quran, e.g. this from 9:29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

[Avvakum]

There's just one thing wrong with what Raymond Ibrahim says here;

• "Although the Islamic State is trying to suggest that only autocrats like Syria's Bashar al-Assad are "apostates" and "hypocrites," and that most average Muslims are eager for Sharia, the fact is, a great many of the world's Muslims fit under this rubric. The largest revolution in history, Egypt's June 2013 anti-Brotherhood revolution, attests to this. Thus the new caliphate's jihad is not just against "tyrants," but many average Muslims as well, as the organization's carnage in Iraq and Syria attests."

Fact is, the Moslem Brotherhood, bad as they are, would not have been overthrown in Egypt without the Salafists there turning against them. The Salafists in Egypt saw the Brotherhood as a political and less Islamic rival, and initiated a truly Machivellian intrigue against them.

Those Salafists in Egypt are theological brethren to the 'Islamic State' that is in Iraq today, all it would take for Egypt to go down is for them to pledge loyalty to 'Caliph Ibrahim'.