Tactical Extractions Counter Terrorism

TACTICAL EXTRACTIONS COUNTERTERRORISM PAPER 02-2010

R.J. GODLEWSKI

Not Killing Muhammadanism is Suicidal

It remains a troubling abomination to consider Muhammadanism as a practice of

tolerance and compassion. On the contrary, the mere existence of the Middle Eastern

religion rests on the violent conversion of its founder. The ideology created by

Muhammad ibn Abdallah resembles ancient Aztecan cannibalism and human sacrifice

more than it does orthodox monotheism. Incompatible with modern expectations of

human liberty, free will, and personal responsibility, the global ambitions of

Muhammadanism – and its modern variant, Islam – necessitate stopping at all costs.

To presume otherwise is suicidal for contemporary Western civilization.

Facts versus Fantasy The quickest way to gauge any ideology is simply to analyze the actions and words of

that belief‟s founder. From this focal point, centuries of subsequent interpretation

remain irrelevant. For instance, centuries of medieval papal imperialism and modern

evangelical opportunism do not dismiss the actions of Jesus. In this context, “Christian”

remains not what modern adherents do but what Christ himself did. Similarly,

Muhammadanism needs defining not by what modern proponents say or do, but

through the actions and words of Muhammad alone.

Well known is the numerous assassinations ordered by, or carried out on behalf

of, Muhammad.1 Less known are the twenty-seven military campaigns that he

personally led and the thirty-eight others that he planned but did not personally lead.2

During one such campaign, Muhammad led 3,000 soldiers against 600 Banu-Kuraiza

Jews who were given an ultimatum – convert to Islam or die.3 They chose death; their

wives and children sold into slavery.4 These examples alone extinguish any classification

of Muhammad ibn Abdallah as a tolerant or merciful individual.

Why, then, despite overwhelming evidence that Muhammadanism exists as the

offspring of a violent cult do modern practitioners and supporters continue to view the

faith as anything but? There are three primary reasons:


2

1. Modern Muslims do not know, or choose to ignore, the violent doctrine expressed

by their Prophet;

2. Modern Muslims remain fully aware of Muhammad‟s violent faith but, for

whatever reason, choose to deceive non-believers;

3. Non-Muslim entities wish to use Muhammadanism as a „tool‟ against competitive

ideologies and faiths towards which they remain hostile.

In the first case, a sizeable portion of the roughly one billion Muslims worldwide may

have erroneously placed too much emphasis on the Judeo-Christian roots of their faith.

They have simply viewed their religion as an extension of such Christian tolerance and

forgiveness sprinkled within the Quran and wrongfully assumed they are the same.

Conversely, they may understand the violent nature of Muhammad and his followers

but choose to secularize their religion into the equal of other, more tolerant, systems of

belief.

In the second reason, Muslims may possess a darker purpose fostered by the

denial of their violence. For instance, many modern proponents advocate that the

Muhammad of Medina represent “what Islam was meant to be” suggesting an image of

“separation of religious and temporal power.”5 Unfortunately, they fail to acknowledge

that following his exposure to Medina, Muhammad transformed himself into the

antithesis of Christian – and therefore, Western – values.6 Shiite Muslims possess a

doctrine of al Taqiyya that permits them to, among other interpretations, deny their

faith in order to fit into indigenous cultures until Islam commands them to take control.

Orchestrated as such, modern Shiite (and Shiite affiliated) Muslims possess the ability

to squash any notions of Muhammad being violent in order to convince Westerners that

Islam represents an honorable religion.

The third reason remains popular with progressive politicians and media

personalities who view Islam not as an enviable faith, but as a decidedly “anti-Christian”

one. Islam thus represents a convenient tool used to, as but one example; assail the

Roman Catholic Church by those who seek socialism. This is verifiable by the number of

Muslim-leaning media organizations who target clergy abuses while simultaneously

ignoring the rampant pedophilia and sex crimes endorsed by orthodox

Muhammadanism. Similarly, those who do not believe in individual responsibility and

initiative, such as both Progressivism and Muhammadanism, explicitly banning

individualism, endorse Islam.


3

Any concept of Muhammadanism as a benevolent and tolerant religion flies in

the face of the founder‟s own actions and 1,400 years of Muslim history. Muhammad

ordered the murder of dozens – if not hundreds and thousands – of innocent men,

women, and children, many of whose sole crime was to question or lampoon the

prophet.7 Islam expanded under the auspices of Muhammad‟s violence and quest to

dominant the world leading to the unification of European resolve to send crusades

against the invading Muslim hordes. It remains doubtful that if Muhammadanism was

as modern Muslims expect the world to believe, that is a tolerant, benevolent religion,

that the conquering Mongol armies of the thirteenth century would have been so

inclined to join the faith. Warriors generally do not feel comfortable within monasteries.

Islam offered „something‟ acceptable to a band of bloodthirsty, intolerant, and victorious

marauders and “turn the other cheek” it was not.

Not Popularity Seeking American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman once said, “If the people raise

a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not

popularity seeking.” British academic Steven Runciman reminded the world that

Muhammad knew of war when he wrote “…Islam unashamedly came with a sword.”

That is, Muhammadanism was indistinguishable from a warrior culture. Although

General Sherman, following the conclusion of the war, fought “unashamedly” for peace,

the infinite wisdom of Christ provided the world with the technique for placing Islam‟s

sword back into its sheath: “…for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword.”8

Fanaticism holds no ability to negotiate.

Modern Islam, however, does not possess a need to negotiate for it rides upon the

shoulders of progressive politicians. Consider the haunting words of former Soviet

Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and compare them with President Barack Obama‟s

infamous statements regarding the future of his nation:

“And if the Russian word ‘perestroika’ has easily entered the international lexicon, this

is due to more than just interest in what is going on in the Soviet Union. Now the whole

world needs restructuring i.e. progressive development, a fundamental change.”

Progressive politicians have “fundamentally transformed” the West into a civilization

ripe for capitulation to Islam. Just as images of Che Guevara had become highly popular

with radical academics, fascination with Islam has become equally popular with the

morally destitute.


4

The battle against Islam, however, is not very popular, nor should it be.

Popularity dismisses the individual from needing to concentrate on the facts. For

instance, it is “popular” knowledge that radical American militia types destroyed the

Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City during April 1995 when, in truth, Islamic

terrorists designed the bomb.9 It is popular – even officially sanctioned – belief that

American Airlines Flight 587 en route to the Dominican Republic crashed because of

structural failure on November 12, 2001 when, in truth, it was brought down by a bomb

similar to that used previously aboard two Russian aircraft.10 It is also popularly thought

that Branch Davidian cult leader David Koresh was simply another individual who

preached that he was Christ come back to earth when, in fact, he once claimed to

descend from Muhammad‟s own („Koresh‟) clan.11

The reason that such things remain popular is because most people do not offer

enough time to think for themselves and tend to accept what others inform them as the

truth. In this regard, the concept of Islam as an equitable religion of benevolence and

tolerance remains unchallenged despite the following facts:

Muhammad forced his religion upon others despite their objections;

Islam views Christians and Jews as second-class citizens;

Islamic nations do not permit non-Muslims to practice their own faiths freely;

Arab Muslims will lie, cheat, and steal to protect Allah (and their families);

In Islam, there remains no doctrine of „free will‟; all aspects of a Muslim‟s life are

considered preordained – or “already written” – and cannot be changed in the

mind of the individual;

Sharia Law – of whatever flavor – represents the law of traditional Islam and

pervades society, economics, entertainment, domestic life, education, science,

and war;

There remains no single Islamic leader today who speaks for a significant portion

of the global Islamic community, leaving the door open for various opportunists

and malcontents who wish to define “Islam” to fit.

Even if a mere 10-15% of Muslims subscribe to the „letter‟ of Islamic Law, the total

number who represent an extremely violent sect approaches 100-150 million individuals

– more than the total number of persons serving in the militaries of the world during


5

the Second World War.12 Fighting such an „army‟ warrants a decidedly unpopular

process.

Getting “Nasty” with Islamists Bruce Hoffman, writing that some argue against “over-militarizing” the war against

terrorism in favor of law enforcement techniques, reminds the world of the

uncomfortable fact that even “good police work” against fanatical terrorists often

involves “nasty and brutish means.”13 By concentrating on prosecuting the “war” against

terrorists as a garden-variety police operation replete with handcuffed prisoners and

lengthy trials, America begs to repeat the errors of General George Crook during the

Plains Indian Wars when his contemporary, General Nelson A. Miles, lamented “Crook’s

policy was to treat those Indians at the Apache reservation more as conquerors than

prisoners. They have been petted and, if that policy is continued, they will furnish

warriors for the next twenty years.”14

To battle against fanatical Muhammadans under the pretext of law enforcement

operations suggests a belief that such individuals will surrender upon a simple “Halt!”

They will not. Radical Islamists possess “a lot in common with psycho-murderers,

spaced-out drug addicts, and sadistic killers” and are not beyond reveling in their ability

to slice and dice victims, gouge out their eyes, slice off their tongues, or torture them for

days with exposed electrical wires.15 Such individuals cannot be “petted” or permitted to

furnish warriors for the next several decades. They need destruction and this entails

tracking them down wherever they may reside.

In the intelligence field – from where our greatest assets against terrorism are

aligned – there is a pragmatic duplicity of sorts involving “lying, cheating, stealing”

while overseas and working within the bedrock constitutionality of America to fight

against those who lie, cheat, and steal against us here at home. This must be the case in

the war against Muhammadans. While our operatives are overseas, they must employ

every technique, technology, and training to kill our enemies. They must not be

constrained by false precepts of “civility” while the nation‟s enemies resort to brutality.

America won the Plains Indian Wars (1865-1879) – after fighting a brutal four-year

Civil War – because it was not afraid to turn tribes against one another, employ equally

brutal tactics, and forcibly relocate those who would not cease and desist.

Radical Islam will not be destroyed until the non-Muslim world decides to single

out Muhammadanism for destruction. There remains no legitimacy in defining the


6

ideology as anything but an affront to individual liberty and inalienable rights. The

Muslim faith survives solely by tyrannical leadership, intolerant doctrine, and forced

conversion. The wreckage in its wake, combined with the lack of scientific, economic,

and religious freedom, attests to its inability to survive within a world where

bureaucracies are failing at an astronomical rate.

Such “too big to succeed” entities will permit the 100-150 million radicalized

Muslims to sway and direct those who do not necessarily share active terroristic or

belligerent tendencies. Like a cancer, the radicalized Muhammadans will likely infect

the modernist Muslims whose devotion to the Prophet‟s ways is less than

fundamentalist in nature. Killing Muhammadanism requires breaking away from the

West‟s reliance upon techniques and technologies that serve little purpose but to

increase the emotional and physical distance from its enemies. This mandates “up close

and personal” tactics that allow the separation of the terrorists from the innocents (both

in literally and political interpretation). To effectively brutalize the enemy, the West

must:

Target individuals, not institutions. This entails not only seeking out terror

suspects who advocate violence against the United States and the West, but also

denying such individuals sanctuary within mosques, hospitals, and other facilities

routinely given quarter by Western militaries. Targeting individuals means

tracking down and eliminating targets wherever they reside without creating

innocent casualties in the process. It also means targeting imams, clerics, and

political figures who openly or covertly espouse terrorism and political violence;

Wage war against the Muhammadan ideology. Islam is not a religion. It

represents a complete way of life incompatible with constitutional America and

similar democracies. In this context, Islam (Sunni, Shiite, or any variation

thereof) must be equated with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Communist

Russia – that of an enslaving institution designed to defeat the individual. The

words, deeds, and doctrine of Muhammad must be singled out for elimination

and supplanted with concerns for the inalienable rights of the individual human

person;

Forfeit attempts to transplant American democracy in the Middle East. The

Arab peoples of the Middle East are incapable of being taught about the benefits

and limitations of American republicanism. Instead of attempting to educate

them about the merits of democracy, the West needs to shore the concept of

individualism and permit the motivated and inspirational to rise according to

their own abilities;


7

Eliminate all aversion to assassination as a tool. Sometimes, battles are won

with a single shot. Those inspiring or instructing low-level terrorists represent

merely a handful. Significant damage to global extremism can be achieved by

eliminating the radical sprout at the bud. Individual extermination (e.g., of

radicalized imams, educators, etc.) should be a first choice, not a last resort.

Conclusions It remains unconscionable to endure a war against Radicalized Muhammadanism

without the necessary will to emerge victorious at all costs. By virtue of its policies, its

doctrine, and the actions and words of its very founder, Muhammadanism remains fully

incompatible with Western ideals of peace, tranquility, and personal liberties. It exists

as a doctrine that fundamentally blasts Judeo-Christian philosophy, ignores the

inalienable rights of the individual, and seeks to conquer the planet through deceit,

subterfuge, and trickery.

Without a prominent and consistent leadership that will challenge the

radicalization of their religion, modern Islam represents little difference from ancient

Aztecan beliefs. It remains an ideology conducive to opportunism, intolerance, and

human sacrifice. That it seeks to transfer blame (mostly) for the Arab world illuminates

its incompatibility with proponents of secularization of the Middle East. Only those who

can accurately analyze their faults and limitations are able to nourish indigenous,

independent solutions.

Muhammadan doctrine requires challenge without failure; the words and actions

of Muhammad require exposure without prejudice; and the lack of modern Muslim

leadership requires critique without politicalization. Only when the Muhammadan faith

offers viewing with untainted eyes will its true nature reveal itself. Otherwise, it remains

a product of religious affirmative action and a detriment to Western civilization.

The war against radical extremists must take into consideration the foundational

tenets that permit – and even endorse – such fanaticism. Muhammad, as a warrior,

assassin, and political opportunist, did not engage within tolerance, moderation, or

compassion. His various military campaigns sought to impose his new faith by force. His

reinterpretation of previously told directions from God suggests perversion of intent.

These represent neither old nor young transgressions of the faith, but a continual 1,400-

year history of Islamic aggression and belligerence.


8

To silence such fanaticism, the West must fight to win and this entails 1.)

Proclaiming Muhammadanism to be a socio-political ideology incompatible with

libertarian democracies; 2.) Invoking every means necessary to eliminate those who

espouse violence against Western or non-Muslim targets; and 3.) Shoring indigenous

assets against the information warfare tactics of Middle Eastern operatives. Simply

remaining “popular” amounts to seeking national suicide. The United States – with or

without its allies – must track down radical Muhammadans wherever they may reside

and employ every means available to terminate their threat against America and the

West. This remains not a matter of political intrigue, but one of pure national survival.

*************

R.J. Godlewski is an independent counterterrorism consultant and president of Tactical Extractions. His specialty is Middle Eastern

Terrorism and Improvised Explosive Device [IED] social networks.

Notes

1 http://www.muslimhope.com/Assassinations.htm

2 Will Durant, The Age of Faith (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950), 170.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Reza Aslan, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam (New York: Random House,

2006), 53.

6 http://rjgodlewski.com/DarkMuhammadByRJGodlewski.pdf

7 Ali Dashti, “Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad” (1994), 75-78.

8 Matthew 26:52, New American Bible.

9 Peter Lance, 1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI: The Untold Story (New

York: Regan Books, 2003), 311.

10 Yossef Bodansky, Chechen Jihad: Al-Qaeda’s Training Ground and the Next Wave of Terror (New

York: Harper, 2007), 278-279.

11 Haha Lung, Mind Control: The Ancient Art of Psychological Warfare (New York: Citadel Press, 2006),

193.


9

12 Estimates of the total number of combatants during 1939-1945 approximate 105,542,100 individuals.

Source: John Ellis, World War II: The Encyclopedia of Facts and Figures (Military Book Club, 1993),

253-254.

13 Bruce Hoffman, “A Nasty Business” in Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding the New

Security Environment: Readings and Interpretations (Dubuque: McGraw-Hill, 2006), 402.

14 Robert L. Utley, “Crook and Miles, Fighting and Feuding on the Indian Frontier,” MHQ: The Quarterly

Journal of Military History 2, No. 1 (1989): 81-91.

15 Eugene Sockut, Secrets of Street Survival – Israeli Survival: Staying Alive in a Civilian War Zone

(Boulder: Paladin Press, 1995), 98.

Documents

Tactical Extractions Counter Terrorism