Britain Then and Now

download

There has been a lot of comparisons done recently about the reaction of Britain to attacks during World War 2 and attacks by terrorists recently. During the Battle of Britain you had famous quotations from Winston Churchill promising defiance and eventual victory. My personal favorite is “Let the Hun do their worst and we shall do our best and with God’s help it will be enough”. Fast forward to today. We have the mayor of London openly saying that terrorist attacks are something that people living in big cities will have to get used to and leftist journalists saying there is nothing we can do. Various personalities on the right have declared that this shows the cowardice and defeatism of the left. They are wrong and this shows a fundamental misunderstanding on how the left thinks.

Right and Wrong

In the past few days I have talked about the concept of the original sin and this illustrates that perfectly. In the past both left and right agreed that Nazi Germany was wrong and Britain was right therefore the British people had the duty to resist German advances. The party that had to change for peace to be achieved was the Germans.

It is different with Islam and terrorism. The right has not changed. They believe that Islam has no right to do what its adherents are doing and they have a duty to resist. The entity that has to change for peace to be achieved is Islam. Liberals do not believe this. Listen to their solutions and the way they define the problem. According to liberals the problem is income inequality. The terrorists are not getting their share of the pie. The problem is climate change destroying their homes. The problem is the US and other European countries interfering in the Middle East. The problem is they are just not educated enough so we need to send more money. Islam does not have to do anything. The onus is on the west to step up and pay their ransom and the terrorist attacks will stop. In fact the proposed solution of Cenk from the Young Turks is a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. Essentially sending up to 10% of the GDP of the United States to build the Middle East.

Original Sin

This is where the original sin comes in. The liberals have already accepted that their country and by extension they are guilty. The country is guilty of being rich. The country is guilty of being successful. The country is guilty of being a much nicer place to live in than the hellholes in the Middle East. In the guilty mind the fact that your civilization is a much nicer place to live in is not due to any special virtue of your civilization but rather due to its vices for exploiting others therefore you must spend your time atoning for your sins.

The liberals are wrong here. It has been consistently proven that the Islamics that launch terrorist attacks on the west are among the most highly educated. The fact that they speak English passably shows this. In 9/11 and the Belgium attacks for example the attackers were all from well off families and were mostly university educated. In the case of terrorist attacks originating from Islamics in the west they were people who were already benefiting from government assistance and other form of hand outs.

Islamic people are not the only ones who are poor. They are not the only ones who are uneducated. They are not the only ones who feel they have gotten a raw deal in life. Yet they are the only ones that consistently blow themselves up to hurt civilians in the west. The issue is not climate change all countries are affected by that if it exists. The issue is not poverty, there are plenty of countries in Asia full of slums. The issue is not education, there are plenty of countries in Africa where no one has seen a book. The issue is Islam, or at least the version practiced by the people in the Middle East.

As Ayn Rand once said it is not practical to support a protection racket. If the only reason you are paying someone is so they will not break your leg then they will just threaten you again in the future. We are right and the terrorists are wrong. If there is to be peace then it is on them to surrender and not us. We have nothing to be ashamed of with the success of the west. In the immortal words of Churchill ” You have enemies? Good. That means you have stood up for something sometime in your life”

Pokemon and Islam

images (9).jpg

When you look at facts objectively one cannot deny one thing. Mohammad was divinely inspired by Pokemon when he created the rules for women in Islam. I am well aware that pokemon came after Islam but the divine works in mysterious ways and the similarities are too close to discount.

Teams – In Islam there is a hard cap in the number of wives you can have four just as there is a cap in the number of pokemon you can have which is six. Unless you are Mohammad who can have unlimited wives you cannot break this cap. Islam theorists have also speculated that the reason that Islamic mean can have four different wives is for specialization. One would be for her godly character, one for her dutifulness and housekeeping skills, one for her beauty, and one to advance the social status of the man something akin to a political wife. Of course the specializations would evolve over time. It could be by fetish now. It is remarkably similar to pokemon. I could not have a team of 6 pikachus as that would leave me weak to earth type pokemon. I would need to specialize and have a fire type, earth type, and others as well.

Pokeballs- In Pokemon when you are no longer using a pokemon it is supposed to go inside its pokeball until it is needed again. Nobody knows what it does there or how it spends its time except it is always ready whenever you need it. Nobody can see the pokemon without the owner summoning it for his pleasure. In Islam we have the womans quarters or haramlik. The women are kept there until needed like the pokeballs and they can only come out in the presence of their trainers or husbands and other authorized male relatives.

Signature Moves- Whenever pokemon get into battles they always do what their trainer says. They will not follow any other trainer and they will even learn new moves at the instruction of their trainers. This is similar to how Islam treats women. Women are always to be subservient to men and follow whatever they say.

Gotta Catch em All – When you begin your pokejourney you fill up your team with whatever pokemon you can get. Then when better ones come along you either boot out the old ones or place them in storage. The same principle applies to Islam. You do not need to be picky about the first wives you choose. You can just say I divorce you thee times and you can get rid of your old ones to make room for new.

Trade- In pokemon you can trade your old unused pokemon with other trainers. Sometimes this is the only way to acquire special items or evolutions. The same is true with Islam. You can trade women with other owners either for other women or for goods and services.

Combat- In pokemon the trainer regularly seeks out other trainers to fight. In combat however the most sacred rule is that the trainers must not get hurt. The pokemons can do whatever they want to each other but the trainer. We see a similar strand in Islam. Women are kept around and used as human shields so that their trainers will not be targeted.

Capture- In pokemon when you capture a new pokemon you throw your pokeball. It does not matter whether the pokemon wants to be captured or not. It is the same with Islam. To add new women to your team you negotiate directly with her previous owner. The woman has no say.

Judicial Tyranny II: Trump Must go to SC

images (8).jpg

The 9th circuit declined to remove the TRO for two reasons. First they had due process considerations for the green card holders that were affected by the ban. Second the court used the precedent of the Lukumi case to look beyond the EO and declare that the intent was to disfavor Muslims. For this article I will be focusing exclusively on Lukumi and pointing out why Trump MUST go to the Supreme Court to have it overturned. First because an EO is either constitutional or its not so if the EO doesn’t clear either of these standards then it will be unconstitutional and second because the Trump administration already provided an exception to the Green Card holders and most of the people of that nature affected by the ban the courts just did not want to recognize it.

Lukumi

The Lukumi case was used as precedent to allow the courts to look beyond the four borders of the EO. The Church of Lukumi is a religious entity with some very particular beliefs. Without going into the details one of them happens to do with animal sacrifices. In 1987 the Hialeah city council passed a series of ordinances banning animal sacrifice. They then proceeded to make exceptions for Kosher butcheries and most other things that may fall under the ordinance.

The Supreme Court held that while the statute was fine on face value taking the exceptions into consideration, the recording of the council deliberations,  and various other details the EO was unconstitutional. They said that while the EO again was facially neutral the intent was to gerrymander it to target the Lukumi church.

Travel Ban

In the case of Trump v Washington the ninth circuit accepted the arguments of the plaintiffs that the various statements made by President Trump during the initial period of the campaign as well as a statement from Rudy were enough to declare that the legislative intent behind the EO was to target Muslims. They specifically used the precedent of Lukumi to allow them to look beyond the EO.

Contrast the facts of the Trump situation vs Lukumi. In Lukumi the law was crafted to specifically target the minority group. In the travel ban most muslims were left out and are not impacted in any way. Six of the seven countries have governments that barely function so it is hard to get data from them but according to worldwide census data 10% or less of the worldwide Muslim population live in these countries. In Lukumi the town council was consistent that animal sacrifices were anathema to their community values and this was reflected in the deliberations. President Trump started with a Muslim ban back in the primaries, modified it almost immediately to exclude citizens, it then underwent sever al more modifications to become the extreme vetting we have today.

Anyone can see that the standards of Lukumi has been greatly expanded to make the case for Trump. The main issue here is that Lukumi already presupposes a constitutionally sound EO, which in all honesty the travel ban is. The argument was to look beyond the ban for the legislative intent. This means that there is no possible way for Trump to change the EO to make it constitutional. The argument of intent will always be there and will always be used to declare it unconstitutional.

This has far deeper implications than just this one EO. Suppose there is a country whose populace just had a holiday where they all chanted death to America. Whose leadership was openly hostile to America and had a history as the very first entity to use suicide bombers. Since they are a Muslim majority this same argument could be used to declare it unconstitutional. You could even make the argument that this could extent to other things. Trade executive orders, foreign policy orders, anti-terrorism ones. This is a perfect example of why this is judicial overreach. With this one decision the courts have essentially taken away all the powers of the Executive regarding immigration.

TRO

Liberal lawyers will say I am wrong and this is merely a temporary restraining order so I am getting bent out of shape over nothing. I agree this is still a TRO. However anyone who is making this argument is naive and does not look at the practical effects. Any time President Trump makes a law regarding immigration then anybody can file a case and get a TRO on these grounds. Given the liberal interpretation of standing the ninth circuit uses it is possible to get it filed in the courts under their jurisdiction have a friendly judge issue a TRO and the ninth will then use the same argument to uphold the TRO.

There is no other recourse here. Trump has to go to the Supreme Court to get them to declare that these arguments are nonsense. I have no doubt they will do that as when you start getting legislative intent from the campaign trail then it opens up a wide door that changes the legal system forever. This must also be done for practical purposes. The left will keep filing these cases and there is nothing Trump can do to stop that. If Trump takes all these cases to the Supreme Court then the sheer number of victories you get will give you a campaign issue to mobilize your base in 2018 and 2020.

Judicial Tyranny and the Ninth Circuit

judicial_tyranny-281x300.jpg

The ninth circuit has ruled on the case of the travel ban of President Trump and until overturned we have new controlling law. I will try to examine all the implications of this decision.

Exemptions Must Be Specific in the Law or EO – The court based most of its decision on the due process rights of the green card holders that were initially part of the ban. In the EO there is a specific provision that allows the government to make exceptions on a case by case basis. The government used this and declared well before the case made it to the ninth circuit that green card holders were exempt from this EO. The court said that it could not take that into account as it was just a directive from the white house as to how to implement the EO and not on the law itself.

Clauses which allow for exemptions are now invalid as each specific instance must be listed in legislation or executive order. Directions made by the executive or legislative are not valid.

Intent is Derived from Surrogates and Public Statements – The court found that the travel ban may have the intent to be a muslim ban because of statements made by President Trump and Mayor Giuliani.

This is a break from normal procedure where you look to the law itself first. Since the EO only affected 7 countries out of dozens of majority muslim countries world wide it could not be a muslim ban by a plain reading of the EO. This means that any statement at any time by a public official can be used to make a law or EO unconstitutional.

For example if a politician were to make a public speech praising an industry or a specific company any law he takes part in could now have the benefit of that company as a motive and be declared unconstitutional no matter what the statute itself states.

Minorities Have No Special Treatment – The court had serious concerns about the EO favoring christian minorities in refugee applications because it was a religious test and it put the majority in the affected countries at a disadvantage.

As of this ruling religion is no longer a protected class. If the Germans started gassing their jews again then the court rules that they should not be given special protections. More realistically if the Chinese for instance start persecuting the Buddhists in Tibet or the Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan start something neither of them could be given special treatment. Scholarships available to Muslim students and other things of that nature should be unconstitutional as well according to this rule.

Over and above this any special treatment to minorities can be arguably declared unconstitutional as well using the same logic. In fact giving special treatment to Syrian refugees would be questionable as that would be detrimental to refugees from other countries.

Need Determines Constitutionality – In deciding the constitutionality of the travel ban the courts have said that they are not persuaded by the evidence provided by the government as to the need for a travel ban. They bring up the argument by the plaintiffs that terrorist attacks from these countries have not hit the US from these countries. As an aside let me point out that attacks have hit other countries in Europe we just don’t like to talk about it.

Others have said that it is asinine for the government to need to wait till a terror attack hits before placing a ban on travel from these countries. That is true but the most important development is the courts can now impose a need test to determine constitutionality. If the law is otherwise valid yet the courts are not convinced for a need for it despite the legislative or executive being convinced then it is unconstitutional. Of course the standard for need is left exclusively upon the courts to decide.

For example the US Senate could ratify a treaty. Since need is now part of the considerations it could be challenged and declared unconstitutional because the courts see no need for it.

Due Process is now Global- The courts held that even if the visa cardholders were not part of the equation the refugees in those countries were deprived of their rights without due process therefore the law is unconstitutional.

When sanctions are placed on Russia for example it could be challenged on these grounds as the sanctions would deprive the Russians citizens of either life, liberty, or property without giving each of them due process.

The ninth circuit just changed the way law works forever. Part of me wishes for the Supreme Court to uphold the decision just for the hilarity that would ensue.

 

Reckless Robart

2011-02_cartoon.jpg

By now everyone will have heard about the ruling of Judge Robart. Leaving aside the fact that he made a nationwide ban on an issue raised by two states and the text of the relevant immigration law which gives plenary power to the President over immigration law, I find his decision legally problematic on three grounds. Not only is it the wrong decision here but the precedent it sets can be used by other judges, whether on the right or the left, in the future.

Intent

At your first year of law school one of the very first subjects you will discuss is something called statutory construction. In essence it is how to interpret laws and executive orders made by the executive and legislative. To simplify things for everyone, you first limit your view to the statute itself. If there are any ambiguities you then try to divine legislative intent, which the courts normally do by looking at the transcript of the deliberations. In rare situations when you still cannot get the intent by these methods then you go to other factors that may help you divine intent.

In this case the muslim ban was not borne out by the text of the order as the word muslim does not appear there. In any case the travel ban was so limited in scope that most Muslim countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, or even Kuwait in the same region are not even affected by it. The judge did not even bother looking for any deliberations nor did he give any credence to the stated intent of the administration which was to ban travel from the most unstable countries in the region.

Judge Robart immediately went to statements made by President Trump during the campaign trail to derive legislative intent. What is worse he even gave credence to statements by former Mayor Giuliani, a well known Trump ally, but one that is not part of the administration for corroboration.

Think about the implications of this. Any president at any time can have his public statements, even before he became the president, taken and used to provide intent for a certain executive order to have that blocked. What is worse is even his allies can have their statements taken as legislative intent for the president. By the standard Robart is using any comments someone like President Obama even while he was a senator could be used to block his orders. Any comments by Soros, Emmanuel, or any other ally could be used to block executive.orders. By his standard you can block any thing you want.

Effectivity 

In the courtroom the government argued that the travel ban protects the country from terrorists. Robart said he found no support for these claims. Instead of judging based on constitutionality Robart instead judged based on how effective the ban was. I believe this is something he has no right to do.

Generally there are two sources where people draw their decision making legitimacy from. Electability or expertise. Congressmen, Senators, and the President make laws and executive orders that they believe is effective and are believed to have the right to do so because they have been elected by the people. The second one is expertise. The various heads of the government agencies and the people working under them are assumed to have expertise on the subject as they were appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.

Judge Robart has neither of these, which is why he was asked to adjudicate based on the constitutionality of the issue and nothing else. There is no limits to their power once the judiciary can strike things down based on effectivity. Do you have a judge that does not like Obamacare? Well he can find that they are not effective in reforming healthcare and strike it down. Do you have a judge that does not like social security? Well he can find that it is not effective at providing a social net and strike it down.

Minorities

One of the questions of the case was whether or not you could give priorities to religious minorities which were persecuted. The President would normally have the power to do this given that he has wide plenary powers given to him by the legislative to tailor immigration to national interest.

Understand the implications of this. If the Germans decided to start gassing their jews again you would not be able to prioritize them for the refugee program. Given that religions are banned , the same argument can also be applied to other divisions such as nationalities or race. If the South Africans decided to massacre their white population you could not give them special treatment. If the Chinese did the same to Tibet you could not either. In fact arguing in this same line of thought it is arguable that you could not even give Syrians special treatment as that would discriminate against everyone else.

I am actually stunned at these decisions and the massive judicial overreach that they represent. I do not see anyway they can hold but if they do then the precedent they cause will change our legal system forever.

Merkel is Close to Achieving Hitlers Dream

137908_600.jpg

It has now been 70 years since World War 2 and the German dream continues. Merkel is well on her way to achieve the goals as determined by Hitler. If you recall those goals were expulsion and then later death to all Jews and German dominance in Europe over most of the other countries.

The Jewish Question

Merkel has made more progress towards expelling the Jews than any other German leader since Hitler. Record number of Jews have been leaving Europe since 2015 usually headed for Israel, the USA, or Canada. The record levels of emigration coincides with the decision of Merkel to unilaterally welcome millions of Muslim refugees from the Middle East which sparked one of the great refugee crisis Europe is now facing.

At the time she made the decision to unilaterally commit the EU in the major undertaking of welcoming millions of Islamic refugees everyone was confused as to why she made that decision. Now that we see the results the reasoning is clear. It is an understatement to say that there is some animosity between Jews and Muslims. Since the time of Hitler Muslim majority nations have banded together twice in an effort to eradicate Israel, the only Jewish nation on the planet. To this day Muslims still regularly send mortar, rocket, bomb, and other type of attacks into Israel. Some Muslim nations still deny the right of the Jewish state to exist as well. Importing an entire culture that hates the Jews would have the desired effect of expelling them.

Like Hitler Merkel will not stop at expulsion. As noted there are three major destinations for the Jews. Israel, USA, and Canada. Merkel has been very vocal about the USA and Canada accepting more Muslim refugees creating the same type of environment in those countries that have been successful in expelling the Jews from Europe. An inhospitable environment in those countries would then lead the Jews to go to the other destination, Israel. Germany under Merkel has been consistent in voting for sanctions against Israel at any opportunity and has generally sided with the countries who say Israel has no right to exist.

Continental Dominance

In the past Hitler tried to conquer Europe by force. He was able to get France and some other countries but ultimately failed. In the continuation of his dream Merkel has tried a different tactic. She has fostered the growth of the European Union. Of course this union is problematic for Germany as well. France and Britain are equally strong economies and in the case of Britain they have a stronger military as well. Instead of a system where Germany has complete dominance it is forced to share power with them.

Merkel in her usual brilliance used the same refugee crisis that helped expel the Jews to force out the economies that could survive on their own. Britain officially voted to leave the EU and by all indications France may soon follow. This then leaves the weaker economies which have been hurt by the strength of the Euro and by the refugee crisis as well. Greece who is on the verge of bankruptcy and unable to provide any social services to their people, has been denied any debt relief by Germany, yet has been criticized for not having the funding and infrastructure to deal with the refugee crisis. Germany as the dominant economy with the other weaker European economies attached to it is the European Empire Hitler always dreamed of. Once Germany is the dominant power we will see more consolidation of power in the EU and even a joint army moving it closer to a true German Empire.

We may hate the principles that Merkel stands for and her continuation of Hitler’s legacy but we cannot deny that she has been more effective at it than anyone else in history.

 

Demonization Works

terrorism-cartoon.gif

Let me begin with my central thesis. Demonization is a valid and effective tool in changing the behavior of a given person or group. In this case speaking of Muslims. Whenever a terrorist attack happens leftist commentators inevitably point out that if it is a white person who is caught he would be declared a lone wolf, but if it were an Islamic person the blame would spread to the entire religion. They then proceed to point out how evil the right is for doing this and how counterproductive it is. Of course no mention as to how the terrorists are almost always Muslims but we will get to that later.

First off I want to show how collective punishment does work to change behavior. If you have ever been in the military or any similar institution you may remember the entire platoon being forced to run or do push-ups or given extra duties for the infractions of a few. The result is the members of the group try to get less infractions so that their unit gets punished less.

In the Philippines, India, and other third world countries there are community lending programs which lend to a group instead of an individual. Each member of the group would get their individual loans and each would be responsible for paying it back. If one member failed to repay their loan then the entire group would be punished by getting denied loans in the future. The result is that the group members themselves, often from the same community and in some cases the same family pressured the members to pay on behalf of the bank and there was a higher repayment rate. The funds ended up being used for business as well as there was an extra consequence of squandering it.

Consider North Carolina in America. The Governor did something the left did not agree with and businesses punished the state. This of course punished the workers for the actions of the state. As a result the state rescinded the laws and it sent a chilling effect to other states.

The liberal media attempts it all the time as well. You see headlines saying a certain survey shows all Trump voters are racist, all republicans are uneducated, and every other possible variation to imply that if you vote democrat then you are a great person but if you vote republican you are a terrible one. These are of course the very same people who tell us that demonization does not work.

Back to Islam. If you see a terrorist attack or mass murder on tv and think that a muslim did it you would be justified in thinking so. In 2015 99% of all terrorist attacks were done by Muslims. We only have 2 isolated incidents aside from that done by communist extremists. To make it worse there is no isolated sect of Islam responsible for the bombings. Both Sunni’s and Shia’s have groups which do it. Even joining Islam does not save you as half the targets of the suicide bombings are fellow muslims. As you can see there is something seriously wrong with Islamic ideology so much so that even when you give the entire world to them one half would still try to kill the other for religious reasons.

I always say that if I walk down elm street and get mugged every day I would be justified in having negative stereotypes of elm street and everyone living there. No one would complain if I reroute to another street particularly if I don’t get mugged there every day. The same analogy applies to terrorism and Islam.

What do we want to achieve by doing this? The first and best result would always be to wean its followers away from Islam. This hurts the terrorists the most as while they believe in Islam they also use its moderates as a shield to prevent the authorities from clamping down harder on them. The less adherents of Islam there is the weaker terrorists become as they have less places to hide. The next thing we want to achieve is to turn the moderates of Islam against the extremists. It has been reported that most radicalization occurs in mosques and other areas populated almost exclusively by Muslims. Showing the moderates that they are in a way tainted by association with the extremists would encourage them to turn them in more and to counsel against radicalization. Lastly we also hope that the extremists themselvess see that the reputation of Islam as a whole is suffering because of them.

Do not feel guilty for holding Islam accountable because of the actions of its followers. Remember the people who justify the suicide bombings are among those who have studied the Quran the longest. Pointing out the flaws of the religion may be the only thing that can save it, if indeed it can be saved.

DEFEATING ISIS

obama-v-isis

The middle east and the terrorist organizations it spawns have always been a problem for the west. First we had al-Qaeda then we had Isis with Iran and other rogue nations in the midst. As is usual with something so contentious there are multiple different solutions offered to the problem. The civilizations inside it have a fiercely independent streak and act differently than other groups. I propose we look at history. We can see how many different cultures who ended up with a stake in the middle east tried to impose its will on it.

THE IRAQ WAR

The most recent attempt and the one we are most familiar with is the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. As you might have guessed the Islamic countries were beaten pretty handily in direct combat, so much so that the entire thing looked like a commercial for US weapons. Of course the war is only the first step and ruling is an entirely different matter.The armies of Iraq and Afghanistan never really fought pitched battles instead preferring to retreat. This left a ready-made insurgency force available in the two countries.

As we all know the US tried an approach of winning hearts and minds. Americans installed democracy and got the people to vote. The area was not safe yet so they used their armies to set up green zones where friendly natives could live and work without threat to their lives. Changing hearts and minds takes a long time as you must change the character and culture of the people to achieve it. Eventually the cost of the invasion both economically and politically were strained and the United States pulled back its troops. The two countries were immediately taken over by various warlords with the tacit approval of the citizens proving that there was just not enough time and direct involvement to make sure that the next generation has the change.

ISRAEL AND THE CRUSADES

I lump both of these historical events together because they attempted to do the same thing. Israel was of course given land and the Crusaders conquered the same land back in the middle ages. Both set up their own states inside the Middle East with non islamic religions. The reaction of the middle eastern countries were roughly the same.

With regards to the crusade they were driven out of the holy land by continuing rounds of Jihad and with regards to Israel they had to survive and win two separate wars with the Arab nations. They did win those wars quite handily but as of yet a majority of countries in the area still do not recognize their right to exist.

This approach taking one area and then filling it with non muslims is very difficult to do as the powers in the area band together against you whenever it is attempted. At best you are constantly attacked and at worse you are driven out of the place altogether. The arabs did have a valid reason starting with the initial event, in which some of their land was taken. It is proof though that peaceful coexistence by another state in the area with a different religion is unacceptable.

THE MONGOLS

People forget this sometimes but the Mongols did conquer the middle east as well. They started with Kwarezmia then made their way to Aleppo and even sacked Baghdad. A city which had not been sacked 500 years prior.

They also set up the parts of the middle east they had conquered as the ilkhanate headed by the line of Chagatai. Strangely enough the Muslims accepted their rule when they would not do the same for the US and they coexisted with the Mongols as well, something they would not do for the Crusaders or the Israelites.

The first thing that the Mongols did was to impose a very light policy rule. The tribes and various factions in the area could still do what they wanted as long as they sent in tribute, send soldiers for the ilkhanate army, and follow some foreign policy directives such as not being able to conquer each other. Second they used very harsh punishments for any violations of the light rules they imposed. Genghis Khan had a system of three tents. If a city revolted the khans tumans would appear and a white tent would go up before the city signifying that everyone would be spared. If they did not surrender a red tent would go up signifying that every male above the height of the belly of a horse would be killed. On the third day a black tent came up signifying that everyone in the city were to die.

The system of lax rules and very draconian punishments worked so well that one of the arabic poets said “You could walk from a city to another with a gold platter on your head and not fear harm”. The middle eastern states responded how you would think they did, with terrorism. One of the first terrorist groups, the assassins, went after Genghis khan. They believed they could do so as they got Saladin to back of their interests just by leaving him a poisoned cake.

The Mongols went berserk. They bribed who they needed to bribe. Killed who would not break and offered protections to those who did. At the end of the day the mongols had the location of Alamut the assassin stronghold. Were they merciful when they got there? Only killed the perpetrators? No they killed all the inhabitants of the fortress as well as any other family member they could find and pulled the entire thing down stone by stone as a warning to future terrorists.

The Ilkhanate enjoyed the support of the Islamic community after and were even able to recruit and integrate muslims into the khans armies up until the time of the decline of the Mongolian empire.

CONCLUSION

As we can see three very different approaches have been tried and it seems clear that only one has had any sort of success when it comes to ruling and integrating the Islamic community into the greater society. We should emulate this as best we can to get the same success. Be light on the rules, keeping only a set few such as those related to terrorism. However be equally ready to punish those who break the rules harshly. One of the reasons why the three tents worked is the Mongols made no exception and any city who led a revolt knew exactly what the consequences were. We can also gain a valuable lesson here for the fight on terror. Pull no punches, exploit everything you can, and show no mercy. It is not just for this terror group but to silence the next one that springs up as well. Make sure that they know consequences for other people aside from you exist if you participate. After all it is easy to lose your life but not the live of a loved one.

The blueprint on how to defeat ISIS has already been given to us by history. It is up to us to follow them.