Part of my old High School senior thesis

Terrorist attacks are some of the cheapest to plan and execute considering the amount of damage they do physically and mentally. While war can cost a nation up to billions, and even trillions of dollars, a well-managed terrorist attack can cost between a few hundred dollars to a few hundred thousand. For example, September 11^th only cost Al-Qaeda 400,000$-500,000$. This includes materials, training, plane costs, housing, food etc. (Eggen) On the other end of the spectrum, 9/11 cost New York City around 95$ billion. (Chan) Since then, terrorist attacks have only gotten cheaper. The Madrid train bombings on March 11, 2004 only cost 10,000$ to plan in all. One hundred and ninety-one people were killed, and over one thousand eight hundred were injured. If you were to put a price tag on human life, it cost 52$ to kill a person that day, not including those who were injured. The London bombings of 2007 were even cheaper, estimated in the low thousands. (Buchanan)

With these numbers, it is not surprising why terrorists continue with the attacks. The amount of death and destruction they deal per dollar is shocking. Waging a war that is cheap, in contrast to modern warfare, is prime since they are fighting it independent of state support. Terrorism is cheap, and therefore very cost effective.

Along with being cost effective, Jihadists are efficient at eluding the U.S and its allies. Terrorism in general is hard to stop, counter and predict. So much so that the three words hanging from the CIA’s counterterrorism office are “Preempt-Disrupt-Defeat.” When one walks into the CTC’s Global Response Center, one will see a sign saying, “Today is September 12^th 2001” A reminder to workers that there is a great need to stop the next terrorist attack, to act as if everyday is September 12^th, the day after the greatest terrorist attack the United States has suffered.

Part of the reason that terrorism is difficult to preempt, disrupt and defeat is because different terrorist networks are unified, but widespread. Physically stopping terrorist’s networks takes a lot of organization and planning due mainly to the terrain of Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, to make matters more difficult, defeating a single terrorist organization is quite the feat. For example the Taliban, an organization that has been crippled by the all-out invasion of Afghanistan remains strong and steadfast because it is spread throughout multiple countries and is divided into different sects. (Kilcullen, 83) Not only is the Taliban spread out but also they are efficient. The Taliban over the past eight years have managed to stay afloat despite a multi-national invasion of Afghanistan. Being widespread helps, but the key is the determination of the fighters, experienced leaders, and a new capacity for terrorist attacks. (Kilcullen, 53)

Iran Gives to Gaza

It appears that only a month after Iran's surprising Nuclear deal with Brazil and Turkey, they have yet again reached out in order to build up a positive image of themselves. Iran has currently sent off a ship filled with humanitarian aid towards Gaza. The ship is said to contain only humanitarian aid and that there are no peace activists aboard. Maj. General Salami of the IRGC, (Islamic Revolution Guard Corps) is quoted saying, "protecting these ships is not on the IRGC agenda."

It appears that Iran is not concerned about the possibility of IDF soldiers boarding their ship. If I was Iran, I wouldn't be sweating too much either. The last thing Israel needs on its plate is yet another war with her neighbors. Something that Israel has a lot of field experience in. Iran also stated that it planned on sending two more ships with humanitarian aid later next week.

Infitada!

This is at least what Israel fears may happen after the arrest of Sheik Salah, and Islamic Movement Leader. He has been barred from the city of Jerusalem for 30 days because of incitement of recent riots in Jerusalem that left an Israeli policeman injured.

Personally I doubt that a third infitada will occur because of this. Although tensions are high, the last infitada was over eight years ago, and an infitada would most likely provoke Hamas to start rocketing southern Israel again, breaking a peace treaty.

If Hamas breaks this treaty this will severely hinder the possibility of a future Palestinian state that Obama is hoping to establish. Hamas and other terrorist organizations think long term, and having a short term period of political unrest where they may gain support, is not worth the sacrifice of the possibility of governing their own official country. At least I believe that they feel this way. I don't believe that the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah will come straight out to the world and announce their agenda on how they will take down Israel, at least directly anyways.

Ideology of Jihad

Old school Muslims believe in two different states, Dar el Islam (The state under which Islam is the government, the law and the military) and Dar el Harb, (Parts of the world not under rule of Islam, but rather infidels).

Jihadist's are warriors that fight for the caliphate (The supreme leader of Dar el Islam) in times of Jihad. Now, the route of the word Jihad is Jihd, which means continuos struggle in Arabic. The definition of the word Jihad by its routes means continuing war. Jihadists fight their "holy war" until it is won.

As I mentioned Jihadists follow the orders of the caliphate (I am of course ignoring when the Ottoman Caliph waged Jihad against Muslims who followed the Allies during the WWI, which after the defeated of the axis, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and since there has not been a Caliphate). Caliphs have the ability to wage Jihad as means as conquering, or defense. The best example of both of these are of course, the Crusades. Jihads are however, wars waged against infidels, against non followers of the prophet Mohammed.

In a speech he gave after the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden gave a speech describing the efforts of the Jihadists. One thing in particular that he said was "The problem the Muslim community has been facings is 87 years old." The problem he is referring to, is the year the caliphate collapsed. I briefly skimmed the importance the Caliph had on the muslim community. In all essence, he has the sole right to wage Jihad. Since the disestablishment of the Ottoman Empire in 1922, the right to wage Jihad went along with it. Since that time however, terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Wahibi have resumed the responsibility of the Caliph. No leaders of these terrorist organizations have claimed to be the Caliph, since they are not head of state and Dar el Islam is no longer.

In the book The Terrorist Watch, Ronald Kessler reports of an interaction between a terrorist being interrogated at G-bay and a CIA agent. The CIA agent asked the forward question of why he would die for Islam. His response came as a surprise to not just to me, but the author and he interrogator. He said "You Americans don't understand. All you think about is American. Well I think about Islam. The ummah, the Islamic community." This terrorist fights for others, he is willing to die for others. There is no coercing the Jihadists to stop their war. As long as Islam prevails and their ideology holds steadfast, there will always be terrorism, there will always be Jihad, they will not hinder, they will not stop until they have achieved victory.

Thats the ideology of Jihad in a nutshell

Capitalism: A Love Story

Michael Moore's latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story, has recently hit theaters this past weekend, and I went to see on first day of viewing.

I have only seen one other of Michael Moore's movies, Fahrenheit 9/11 which debuted during the summer before the 2004 Presidential elections. There is a distinct difference between Fahrenheit 9/11 and Capitalism: A Love Story, Fahrenheit 9/11 was a movie mainly based on opinions and supported with some facts. Capitalism: A Love Story, was purely facts and the information he provided was to be interpreted by the audience, be it positive or negative.

I really enjoyed this film, for it was humorous while informing. It explained a lot and showed facts that the media kept hidden since it would hurt those who sponsor them and whom they sponsored. (Politicians, banks, etc) I highly recommenced this film to anyone whose pays taxes to the United States government, I'd rather not give away the film.