Islamization of Europe and Policies to Prevent It, Part 9
21 Aug, 2007
            
            POLICY AREA 12: SECURITY POLICY PART C
Parts:
A 12.1 BACKGROUND
A 12.2 CERTAIN GOALS FOR A NEW EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY
B 12.3 MORE ABOUT GOALS AND POLICIES
C 12.4 Certain goals for an European security policy
C 12.5 POLICIES NECESSARY TO REALIZE THE GOALS IN 12.4
D 12.6 THE ENDGAME: NEVER AGAIN
12.4 CERTAIN GOALS FOR AN EUROPEAN SECURITY POLICY
12.4.1 The Great Civil War in Europe
            
The conflicts between islamists and other followers of 
            traditional islam, which is the real islam, and non-muslims in 
            various countries in Europe, grew during the first decades of the 
            21st century. The larger the muslim parts of the populations grew in 
            various countries, the more radicalized (in this case: true to its 
            doctrine) they became. No effective policies prevented that parallel 
            muslim societies became strong in different parts of Europe, and 
            forced the governments to make many concessions and give privileges 
            to islamists. The political development in Europe therefore followed 
            the process described in Part 1. The way in which individual 
            governments made themselves free of the restrictions put on them by 
            EU and its administration, was described in sect.12.3 p.14.
            
After decades of protests and demonstrations, a number of violent 
            acts against political adversaries including murders of political 
            opponents, developed into frequent physical fights between islamists 
            vs police and private militias, and later into firefights. The 
            frequency of terrorist acts against the general non-muslim 
            population increased. In some countries, this phase E (or ph. 5) of 
            the islamisation process of Europe led to armed insurrections (phase 
            F (also called ph. 6)) which grow organically from the 
            demonstrations, conflicts, fights and terrorist acts. After a 
            period, even heavy weapons were used, and the fights between 
            islamists and the military and other forces soon developed into 
            regular civil wars (phase G (also called ph. 7)). 
            
In the countries where this occurred, city after city were partly 
            (or mostly) destroyed in the fighting. During the conflicts, it was 
            discovered that the concentration of muslims to certain larger 
            cities, and there often to parts of the cities, was a blessing. Few 
            wars have been won by mainly occupying cities - by static forces - 
            with few industries and no natural supply of food or other necessary 
            resources. The fighting rapidly became very brutal, and a hundred 
            Fallujahs appeared in Europe. The civil wars in various countries 
            were extremely violent and cruel, and the destruction of the cities 
            severe, when block after block had to be reconquered by the 
            Europeans. 
            
In a few countries where socialists/social democrats and social 
            liberals still held power despite electoral setbacks, the weak 
            reactions of the governments led to the islamists gaining ground. 
            This caused the governments to fall, and 
            conservative/nationalist/classical liberal/libertarian parties took 
            over the political power. However, at that stage these had – like 
            the French government after Dunkirk in 1940 - great difficulties to 
            stabilize the military situation, and it could be done only at a 
            great cost in human lives. The larger parts of these countries were 
            taken over by islamists. 
            
But in other countries, the strategic and tactical situation of 
            the islamists generally deteriorated slowly after some months of 
            fighting, and specially when regular European military forces were 
            mobilized and trained. The shortage of heavy weapons and regular 
            military knowledge of the islamists were only two factors. Their 
            strategic and tactical thinking was often inadequate and couldn't 
            compensate for a number of weaknesses of the muslim forces. The 
            solidarity between most European nations was now strong; help was 
            given by a number of countries with better domestic political 
            situations; and in the end also American troops helped to crush the 
            islamists. The American troops were specially helpful in countries 
            where the islamists had nearly taken over the political power 
            because of the weaknesses and mistakes of earlier governments. The 
            help from muslim countries to the islamists was also often prevented 
            to reach them thanks to the American forces surrounding Europe. An 
            iron ring protected Europe against interventions from the outside.
            
The centers of resistance were systematically attacked and 
            subdued but it took much longer for the European forces to reconquer 
            cities than for the American Marine Corps to conquer Fallujah in 
            2004. As a matter of fact, the tempo of the fighting, the treatment 
            of prisoners etc hade many more similarities to the fight for 
            Tammerfors in March-April 1918 (during the Finnish civil war) than 
            to Fallujah in 2004. And the worse the atrocities carried out by the 
            islamists became, and the longer the fighting continued, the more 
            radicalized became the European population. As always, civil wars 
            cause the most intense hatred between the parts of the population 
            which fight each other. 
            
            
Granada II
            
Soon after the first outbreak of hostilities between the Home 
            Guard plus army units and the islamists, slogans like “ Granada II”, 
            “Granada, not Palestine” were heard. They became more and more 
            common and were soon incorporated among the goals of many non-muslim 
            political organizations and parties. The people saying e g “Granada, 
            not Palestine” had realized that the European policy regarding PLO 
            and the Palestinian refugees during more than half a century had in 
            reality only led to the preservation of a problem, and not to any 
            kind of solution. No similar destructive so-called peace process 
            could ever be accepted in Europe between muslims and non-muslims.
            
            
The European public had at that point of time also understood the 
            islamic policy of “hudna”, a method – a truce for a while - used when islamists are weak, so they can regain their strength and then again 
            fight for the islamisation of Europe. The socialists/social democrats 
            and social liberals could not explain to the public why such a 
            privilege should be given to islamists when these were weak. Most 
            people understood that it was important to crush them when they had 
            become weak, in order to be able to solve the problem for ever. So 
            these slogans could be heard from the lips of an ever increasing 
            number of Europeans. But other – less drastic - solutions were 
            naturally also formulated. 
            
            
Contributing reasons
            
A number of factors contributed to the dramatic radicalization of 
            the attitudes of the European electorate. The fact that the dislike 
            by the Europeans of the activities of many muslims had been 
            suppressed by various laws for so long, led to a special intensity 
            in the hatred of the islamists. The contempt and disgust for so many 
            islamist thoughts, actions and rules had hardened during the earlier 
            decades, and suddenly people were allowed to show what they really 
            thought. The large number of terrorist acts during the earlier 
            decades, and the atrocities during the armed insurrections and the 
            civil wars in various countries, had also exhausted the patience of 
            the tolerant European citizens. 
            
The refusal of so many of the so-called mainstream, or moderate, 
            muslims, to accept any kind of responsibility for the muslims 
            following what was said to be another interpretation of islam – 
            political islam/islamism - and the general unwillingness of muslims 
            to help the police and intelligence services to identify and find 
            islamists, had revealed the emptiness of the claim that islam 
            basically is a religion of peace and tolerance. Many moderate 
            muslims just felt unable to act against islamists who, regarding so 
            many issues, in reality have the full weight of the islamic doctrine 
            behind them. To be a moderate muslim was in many cases revealed to 
            be just a cultural habit easily discarded if the faith of the person 
            for any reason became stronger. That many muslims didn´t act as 
            citizens, instead of being passive or active allies of the 
            terrorists, was more damaging to the cause of islam in Europe than 
            anything else. 
            
Most people had during the earlier decades also understood the 
            method to argue that the islamists and many other muslims employ, 
            and how these rules are used in all discussions and dialogues with 
            non-muslims. So e g a favorite method like the role of a victim of 
            the brutal actions by non-muslims was no longer credible to 
            Europeans. People understood that these muslims were instead victims 
            of their own often primitive values and their interpretation of the 
            religious doctrine. 
            
The growing understanding that the fight for islam also – to a 
            considerable extent – was a fight for the goals of an Arab 
            imperialism aiming at the domination of Europe using islamification 
            as a method, also mobilized the Europeans. 
            
            
12.4.2 Goals for a successful security policy
            
            
12.4.2.1 A basic goal
            
Every European shall understand that every act of islamic 
            terrorism in European countries is a proof of the failure of the 
            immigration and integration policies of the earlier – and current – 
            socialist/socialdemocratic and social liberal governments. The 
            parties of social liberalism och socialdemocracy have clearly shown 
            what their true values are i e that they lack the important values 
            which make it mandatory to protect the European populations against 
            all threats including religious ones. Their refusal also to respond 
            effectively to the islamification efforts by muslim organizations is 
            unforgivable. 
            
These governing parties have – because of their ideology/dislike 
            of the market economy/dogmatism/a special interpretation of 
            multiculturalism - put Europe and the European civilization in an 
            extreme danger. And when the catastrophic consequences started to 
            appear in various countries, the national and local governments 
            tried to suppress the reactions of their European citizens by 
            curtailing their human rights like freedom of expression (disguised 
            as laws against hate speech), freedom of assembly e g the planned 
            large antiislamist demonstration in Brussels 070911. But every 
            suppression of the political rights of Europeans is another proof of 
            the shipwreck of the policies formulated by political establishments 
            in many countries. These politicians tried to conceal that they had 
            not told the truth to their peoples about the many serious 
            consequences of the mass-immigration of muslims. All these 
            repressive measures were only selfserving measures intended to 
            conceal the pending catastrophe, when it appeared more and more 
            likely. 
            
The political parties which are responsible for these policies, 
            have committed such mistakes owing to fundamental errors in their 
            ideologies and approach to politics, that they can never again be 
            trusted with the power to influence the political directions of the 
            nations of Europe. To make the European population understand this 
            basic fact, and how these parties compromised the European security, 
            is now not only a political goal but in reality a true national 
            security goal. The irresponsibility of these parties have put the 
            European continent into an extreme danger threatening the political 
            and cultural, and therefore even the national survival of many 
            countries. 
            
            
12.4.2.2 To fight against Arab imperialism 
            disguised as a religion
            
Why the islamist and traditional interpretation of real islam 
            must be fought has been explained earlier. But islam is - besides a 
            religion – also the weapon of an Arab imperialism realizing the 
            goals of Arab political organizations/parties, and also some 
            governments e g Saudi Arabia. It is the basic motivation of many 
            muslims who don't take the religious aspects of islam very 
            seriously. They have understood that their religion is basically a 
            method to conquer other countries, and that the religious aspects 
            are highly useful to reach this goal. 
            
This explains what so many Europeans cannot understand: Why many 
            muslims who individually seem moderate from a religious 
            point-of-view, anyway support the islamists? It is not only the 
            fact that the islamic doctrine regarding so many matters supports 
            the islamists - and not the moderates (and the moderates know 
            that!). These so-called moderates understand the enormous advantages 
            of belonging to a movement that takes over the power in an advanced 
            society. Muslims can then by various methods e g force, special 
            taxation etc exploit the property and riches of the non-muslims. One 
            consequence is then that just moderation in belief doesn't 
            necessarily diminish the desire of muslims living in the west to 
            participate in taking over a country using islam as a method. 
            Non-religious, economic aspects are also important.
            
This Arab imperialism threatens the national cultures, 
            institutions, and habits of many nations. The newly converted 
            European muslim shall take a new – Arabic – name; according to islam 
            he ought to limit his contacts with his non-muslim family and 
            earlier friends (in the way sects generally demand); Allah talks 
            Arabic, which therefore is the language every muslim should learn 
            for religious reasons. The religious ceremonies are performed in 
            Arabic, and also in Paradise only Arabic is spoken. The muslim shall 
            bow towards Arabia five times per day, and even in death his/her 
            body must be turned towards Arabia (Mecca). (1)
            
A number of factors lead to the result that Europeans who convert, will sacrifice their own culture for the Arabian one. To earn religious points in order to be able to go to Paradise, a convert must live like an arab, and love Arabia. It has been pointed out that Muhammad's role as an ideal model of muslim behavior is a fundamental cause of Arab cultural imperialism. If the convert shall behave in the correct manner, he/she shall imitate Muhammad. That means that his own culture is abandoned, and the Arabian culture is accepted:
…one must think, feel and act as the Prophet did; one must develop the same tastes and habits as the Prophet had; one must even eat, drink, talk, walk, sleep and look like him in dress and general appearance...
The fundamental principle of Islam is…to perpetuate itself 
            through a permanent strife based on the distinction of…(the Muslim) 
            and… (the non-Muslim)…. it becomes the duty of all converts to Islam 
            that they... subordinate all their national institutions to those of 
            Arabia, adopt Islamic law, learn Arabic and Arab manners; love Mecca 
            and Arabs, to acknowledge Muhammad as the Model of Behavior because 
            being an Arab he loved and enforced everything that was Arabian. 
            Still worse, they must hate their own culture and motherland to such 
            an extent that it becomes Dar-ul-Harb, i.e. a living battlefield. In 
            practice it means that they must set up an opposite camp in their 
            own motherland and fight their own countrymen until they all 
            surrender … …by embracing Islam. It is then and only then that the 
            country becomes Dar-ul-Islam i.e. the Land of Peace; otherwise it 
            remains a battlefield (Dar-ul-Harb) ….These non-Arab Muslims develop 
            a special sense of contempt for their own cultures and motherlands 
            under the pretence of believing in the Muslim nationhood… (2), 
            
When all aspects are added up, the Arab imperialistic character 
            of the religion is overwhelming. Arabian culture and habits slowly 
            strangle the local cultures in the countries, where Arab immigrants 
            have become numerous or islam strong. 
            
And what is then the final, ideal political result of a global 
            islamic victory (a result that shall then last for all the future of 
            mankind) ? Well, in the future perfect islamic society and the 
            perfect muslim world-state which all muslims shall work for, one 
            kaliph - a dictator – governs over the world. Democracy is 
            eliminated. The kaliph shall be an arab, and ideally even come from 
            a certain Arab tribe in Saudi Arabia.
            
This is the worst kind of political and cultural imperialism. To 
            withstand this type of invasion disguised as a global religion, is a 
            vital condition for the survival of Europe. 
            
            
            
12.4.2.3 Important goals for a security policy
            
Some general security goals of the European nations follow from 
            the basic foreign policy goals expressed in sect. 12.2. We will not 
            treat the more specific and detailed security goals but will limit 
            the discussion here to the basic – but in the long run most 
            important - goals which must form the backbone of a security policy 
            regarding a Europe where human rights are respected.
            
The violations of the human rights of individuals – muslims or 
            non-muslims - caused by the real, traditional interpretation of 
            islam, also have as a purpose to undermine the western society, and 
            pave the way for an islamic society. These crimes can therefore be 
            viewed as a part of the warfare against the non-muslim society and 
            similar in their longterm a i m to terrorist attacks and military 
            resistance. A resolute defense of freedom and the human rights of 
            every resident – muslim or non-muslim - is therefore necessary, and 
            seen as part of a broadly defined security policy.
            
The rules and policies against: (a) violations (caused by the 
            religion) of the human rights of family members, (b) non-physical 
            religious hate crimes (see Policy Area 4), (c) crimes against 
            integration (Policy Area 6), or (d) against sexual equality in order 
            to uphold sexual apartheid (Policy Area 3), belong to the soft part 
            of a broad security policy (SP Part I). Physical attacks against 
            property or people caused by religious considerations, terrorist 
            acts, and military insurrections belong to activities which form the 
            hard part of the security policy (SP Part II). 
            
For example, religiously based (or accepted) crimes against 
            muslims – often family members – allow the islamists to counter 
            integration attempts and keep a parallel society (muslims following 
            a muslim agenda and sharia rules, and not western law) intact and 
            therefore as a resource, or weapon, to be used against the secular 
            state. The effects of e g honour killings are – besides upholding a 
            primitive and at the same time childish honour concept ― to preserve 
            the power of men over women and by that an important part of the 
            profound collectivism of the Islamic society with few individual 
            rights. Honour murders are also political statements. There are good 
            reasons to see such acts as part of the islamisation efforts of 
            muslims in Europe, and politically different in kind but not in aim, 
            to terrorism and insurrections. 
            
An unconditional defense of human rights in all nations of Europe 
            is therefore part of a broad security policy. A proactive 
            zero-tolerance policy regarding all violations of human rights in 
            European countries and with the main attention directed to such 
            violations by muslims, shall be realized by the full force of the 
            state. It constitutes part I of the security policy (also see 12.2 
            p.3A). Religious hate crimes (see Policy Area 4), crimes against 
            integration (see Policy Area 6: sect.2) and also crimes aiming at 
            upholding sexual apartheid according to muslim rules (see Part 2: 
            sect 4.3), shall be specially observed. 
            
The muslim clergy is vital to the islamist movement. Khomeini was right when he said that without the support of a committed clergy, the islamic revolution will weaken, or – in the long run - even disappear. The efforts of mullahs are important in Europe in order to build parallel societies and resist integration. All people who fulfill priestly or supporting functions in muslim mosques in Europe must therefore be given attention and have their behaviour controlled.
All religious hate crimes by mullahs must be observed and later punished. A number of religious hate crimes were discussed in Part 4 (Policy Area 4). The measures proposed in 12.3 p.10-11 regarding the muslim clergy are important. However, religious hate crimes against human rights are committed by many people, and are the backbone of the efforts to counteract integration and keep parallel societies functioning in Europe. The earlier stated goal is also a security one: “No parallel societies shall be allowed in any European country” (see 12.2 p.2.4). Without such societies, islamism will be drastically weakened. Elimination of all religious hate crimes against human rights in Europe is a specially important part of the proactive zero-tolerance policy mentioned above.
Some goals concerning the hard part of the security policy (SP 
            Part II) are:
            
1. Elimination of all major causes of islamism, terrorist acts 
			and armed insurrections in Europe. Arguments saying that terrorism 
			is caused by factors like the Western policy regarding Israel, are 
			generally untrue. It has been pointed out that it is not because of 
			what we do, but because of whom we are, that western democracies and 
			citizens are hated by muslims.
            
A number of extremely important aspects must then be treated and 
            decided upon. The issue of immigration naturally has major weight. 
            Immigration cannot any longer be allowed to create national security 
            risks in Europe. Considerable changes in today´s immigration 
            policies are necessary (see 12.2 p.9 and 12.3 p.10), and these will 
            be treated in Policy Area 8.
            
If one speaks about major causes, a basic issue regards the 
            motivation of islamists. To weaken that motivation is to take away 
            the fuel from islamists, and in reality nothing is more important 
            from a security point-of-view than that. It is then of interest to 
            the European nations that the main psychological pillars of islamism, 
            which drive the terrorists to act, are – if not destroyed - at least 
            weakened. The main motivational factors shall therefore be 
            identified, and – if possible – their power eliminated. 
            
This demands that the state is allowed to critizise various 
            aspects of a religion e g that suicide bombers will be rewarded by 
            going to the Paradise. The state can do that as long as the reason 
            is not to support any specific religion but that an interpretation 
            of a specific religion causes numerous crimes against human rights 
            and political freedom. A policy regarding the core elements of the 
            islamist faith which are of importance for the violent behaviour of 
            islamists, is formulated and carried out. 
            
Let´s just take an example of another general motivational 
            factor. A powerful reason for many men to support islamism is that 
            this ideology fights for k e e p i n g w o m e n o p p r e s s e d 
            in order to function as servants to men. Without women to dominate 
            and kept as servants and second class citizens, the reason and 
            motivation even to be a muslim is much weaker. Women who fulfill the 
            subservient role chosen for them according to the gender apartheid 
            rules, make men´s life infinitely easier. What this role means is e 
            g that a man can get a wife without having to show any personal 
            qualities impressing the woman. Just by fulfilling something similar 
            to a business transaction, he will have a subservient and docile 
            servant who even gives him sexual gratification, and in any way he 
            wants because she has no right to object. And if the male chooses 
            not to help the wife with anything at home, that is also correct aso.
            
            
The male´s whole personal life is influenced by these gender 
            apartheid rules which many (most ?) muslim men approve of. To 
            preserve gender apartheid is then an extremely important 
            motivational factor for followers of islamists, and specially young 
            men. Even if they have horrible personalities without any good 
            qualities, they can still get married to an obedient female servant. 
            Many male muslims know that their whole life style is threatened by 
            the western laws and therefore they want to stop the process of 
            female emancipation. As long as that seems possible, some will 
            support islamists. 
            
However, if it doesn´t seem possible to prevent female 
            emancipation any longer, their attitude and support may well change 
            because this stand may then cost too much. Female emancipation also 
            changes women from servants and second-class persons to independent 
            individuals who can make individual choices – and therefore perhaps 
            even decide to fight against islamists (or at least not support 
            them). It is for many reasons a national security goal to make 
            muslim women equal to men in all practical aspects. The proactive 
            zero-tolerance policy regarding e g all crimes against integration 
            and religious hate crimes supporting gender apartheid, is necessary 
            also from this point-of-view. Freer and more independent women will 
            be an important factor in eliminating parallel societies, and 
            diminishing the power basis of the islamists. In this respect, soft 
            policy is hard policy.
            
2. Those parts of the islamic doctrine which are contrary to UDHR, 
            and to the constitution of the specific country and its bill of 
            rights, are a threat to a peaceful society. They shall be declared 
            unlawful and therefore not relevant, and shall not be allowed to be 
            taught or used in any religious messages, sermons, and other 
            religious activities etc. The political consequences of the fact 
            that islam is a religion very different from all other important 
            religions, and that many of its theses cannot be respected, shall be 
            drawn. The issue if traditional islam is a sect must be thoroughly 
            examined. 
            
3. The intelligence-, police- and military capacity (the national 
            protection forces) where a volunteer Home Guard will play a key role 
            (see 12.4.3), will be heavily expanded. 
            
4. An intense cooperation between nations regarding security and 
            military matters using mechanisms that – in all probability - are 
            not under the control of EU (see 12.2 p.8 and 12.3 p.13) is 
            necessary. Governments with similar opinions cooperate continously 
            and realize a forceful anti-islamist security and military agenda in 
            Europe. The legal changes necessary for the future conflict were 
            described in sect 12.3 p.16.
            
5. Satisfactory intelligence regarding all organizations where 
            islamists may be active must be collected by the state, and by all 
            available means. Infiltration of such organizations shall be carried 
            out wherever it is possible and cost-effective ( also see 12.3 
            p.15). 
            
6. Strong and continous efforts to weaken the ability of all organizations, influenced by islamists, to support and/or carry out acts of terrorism, or take part in military insurrections. Using the traditional enmity between certain islamic groups/nationalities may be one possible method.
7. No European nation shall agree to that “one square centimeter of European soil shall be allowed to be under the sovereignty of political Islam….. there shall be no “no-go” areas in Europe” (see12.2 p 2.3). This regards dominance by non-elected organizations.
Even if a government of islamists was elected, it would soon break the law by violating the constitutional rights of individuals, and would then in practice be illegal. But such parties with a religious agenda that goes against the UDHR or the constitution of the country, shall not be allowed to take part in elections (see Policy Area 4).
8. Another goal for the European nations is to support - by all 
            necessary resources - any European country threatened and attacked 
            by islamists, according to the principle “One for all, all for one” 
            (see 12.2 p. 2.2).
            
9. One principle guiding the security or military response to e g 
            armed insurrections is that a proportionate response is an extremely 
            faulty and dangerous principle. It just allows the adversary to 
            survive, and keeps the problem alive. The best principle is often 
            owerwhelming force if such a response can be arranged. Just the 
            speed that this approach causes, saves many lives in itself. 
            
Another principle is that the lives of the European soldiers and 
            citizens which support the government, shall be protected maximally. 
            That principle has definite consequences for the rules of 
            engagement, and for tactical military decisions. 
            
            
10. All other, often more detailed and technical, security goals.
            
            
12.4.3 The National Protection Forces 
            
            
The period of reduced national resources committed to defense or 
            national security has now ended. Owing to the betrayal by the 
            socialist/socialdemocratic and social liberal governments of the 
            security of the European nations, these must now commit vastly 
            increased resources for intelligence, internal security and national 
            defense. Without that betrayal, many relevant grants could still be 
            held rather low. But e g a larger court system, a considerable 
            larger prison capacity, a larger police force, increased budgets for 
            internal security, increased resources aimed at suppressing 
            terrorist acts, a larger army a s o is a considerable drain on 
            national resources (besides all types of support payments and social 
            welfare costs for such immigrants who are a menace). These expenses 
            would have been unnecessary with a sensible immigration/integration 
            policy. 
            
            
Increased resources are now necessary for:
1. Intelligence/security organizations
2. The local and national police forces
3. A drastically expanded Home Guard force
4. The army
One of more nations also ought to build a European Protection Force (see below).
            
The local Home Guard
            
A volunteer local/regional Home Guard shall now form a much 
            larger part of the total National Protection Forces. This expanded 
            Home Guard shall be able to effectively control the local 
            communities - or even regions – where it is located, against any 
            armed activities of islamists, and if necessary suppress any 
            rebellion by force. Budgetwise, it means a dramatically increased 
            force, increased compensation for officers and the soldiers; more 
            and better training; better and heavier equipment, personal 
            protection vests and equipment to fight in darkness etc. Because of 
            their increased responsibilities, a permanent officer corps with 
            better and longer education, and a larger Home Guard administration, 
            is necessary.
            
The Home Guard shall permanently be ready to act against all 
            kinds of threats. When the threats are eliminated, the soldiers go 
            back home. Such units will make private anti-islamist militias much 
            less probable. Private militias will otherwise form spontaneously 
            when the conflicts in the society and the terrorist attacks 
            increase.
            
            
The National Home Guard
            
A special part of the Home Guard shall be equipped with heavy 
            weapons and have a mobile capacity. These units shall be able to 
            operate over the whole country and support those local Home Guard 
            forces which meet special problems. Together with the local Home 
            Guard, they shall be able to reconquer whole communities which have 
            been taken over by islamist forces. These heavy units are given 
            special training. Also these soldiers are all volunteers and they 
            function as soldiers a certain number of hours per month. When a 
            crisis has occurred, they have the right to leave their jobs, become 
            full-time soldiers and are paid for that dangerous work to protect 
            the nation. 
            
This part of the Home Guard is called the National Home Guard (NHG) 
            in contrast to the ordinary Home Guard which has local or regional 
            duties. 
            
            
The national army
            
At a suitable point-of-time during the islamisation process in a 
            country, conscription shall be introduced, if it has earlier been 
            eliminated. Military training of young people leaving school will 
            then start again. Refresher training of earlier trained persons 
            shall also be common again. When the fighting has started, a 
            selective mobilization of men under 50 and who are not engaged in 
            the Home Guard, is carried out. 
            
The Home Guard is an all volunteer force, which train together 
            during brief periods but during a long period of time, and have an 
            extraordinary local knowledge. The units can be mobilized in 
            sometimes less than a day, and they step down immediately the danger 
            is over. The infantry in the army has distinct weaknesses in these 
            respects but has other large advantages e g longer continuous 
            training, regular support of heavier weapons (armour, artillery etc) 
            and training in large units together with other arms including the Air 
            Force. The longer a civil war will last, the more important will the 
            conventional army become. 
            
            
A European Protection Force 
            
One or two European nations shall organize a European Protection 
            Force (EPF) consisting of volunteers from any nation in the world. 
            The enlisted men in EPF will consist of trained soldiers, or just 
            untrained volunteers interested in becoming soldiers and protecting 
            freedom and democracy in Europe from internal threats. They shall be 
            paid a low salary, and the units shall be under a very strict 
            discipline. They shall be able to fight anywhere in Europe. The aim 
            is to create an elite force with weapons that allow it to reconquer 
            and dominate any community or region in Europe, which is under 
            attack, or has been conquered, by islamists. Because of their 
            extremely high motivation, background and training, these 
            professional soldiers can be exposed to any hardships and dangers in 
            their fight to preserve freedom in Europe. They shall be able to 
            form the vanguard in every fight against islamists, as long as 
            regular national army units are not available. 
            
Such units can be created just for the need of one country but it 
            is desirable and advantageous from the viewpoint of 
            economies-of-scale if a larger force is trained in one place but – 
            if needed – can work everywhere in Europe. For that reason, the 
            nation that creates this force shall let other nations contribute to 
            the financing of it, and some may be willing to do just that just as 
            a national insurance premium. At the request of a specific 
            government, (part of) the force is lent out to that country. Its 
            goal is then to help that government to prevent or suppress any 
            islamist uprisings there, and to assist in tracking down and 
            apprehending all islamists in a region. While these units then are 
            under the command of the military representatives for the government 
            of the specific country, they will fight as separate units, and 
            under their own officers.
            
This capacity will be of considerable help to any government which tries to fulfill the goals of not allowing even one square centimeter of European soil to be under the sovereignty of political islam, or assisting in eliminating armed rebellions etc caused by e g the refusal of the islamists to dissolve various parts of a parallel society in a country.
________________________
(1) http://islam-watch.org/AnwarSheikh/Islam-Arab-Imperialism7.htm
(2) http://islam-watch.org/AnwarSheikh/Islam-Arab-Imperialism7.htm
>>> Continued to Part 10
| If you like this essay: | 
              Stumble it   
              
              
               | 
              digg it | 
vbv
Tuesday August 21, 2007
03:16:23 -0700
The whiteman reaps what he has sown.In the colonial era i.e. prior to the 1950s they found common cause with the muslims, as co-monotheist in religion , disdaining others as polytheists (Hinduism) or atheists (Budhism/Jainism), sympathised with them, instigated and incited them for a seperate muslim nation from India. They gleefully stoked the fires and dismembered this country. Well ,polytheists are also reasonable and secular people didn't go too well with their narrow mindsets. The europeans generally disparaged Indian history as 'no history' and our culture as backward. The arrogance of power blinded them and consistently supported ,until recently, the so-called Kashmir 'cause' in favour of Pakistan (of course till they realised that Pakistan was deeply involved in exporting islamic fundamentalism/terrorism to the West). Islamic nations by nature of their creed are backstabbers and cut-throats, they will have no compunction to bite the hands that feed them (the case of Afghan mujahids who fought the USSR occupation, along with the muslims of other countries ,including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, etc. the list goes on). Both the West and the islamic countries are equally amoral and culpable for the present world scenario. Opposition to islamic fundamentalism, fanaticism and terrorism can come effectively only from countries such as Russia, China, Japan India (if our secular politicians become truly secular), Thailand, Nepal, Vietnam, Korea and maybe Australia. I wont be surprised that one day Europe and USA become a colony of Saudi Arabia, carrying the jihad to the rest of the world and bring destruction to the entire humanity, perhaps the prospect of full-scale nuclear war is not farfetched with a rabid creed called islam flourishing in the near future! Of course there is a brighter side to it also, Darwin's evolution being a scientific fact, new species would evolve, perhaps sans religion!
mel tal
Friday February 27, 2009
04:24:42 -0500
the threat and danger of islam, radical or not, is clear from this article. the main problem, i think, is not that people are unaware of the horrors of islam but they have no real motivation in doing something about the fight against the dictatorships and fascism islam creates, always with the appearance of being victimized and weak, especially by jews. in history the jews have been scapegoated always because of their individualitic and freedom loving character as well as their intelligence as a people. but the article is an excellent start and should be promoted more throughout the world. i think at the essay should especially reach the highest political echelons who have not been up to now poisoned by the money and propaganda of the arabs and islamists.