Troubles Begin in Thinking Islam Must be Repaired by Islam

 

There is a theme that in order for Islam to find some means of coming to grips with modernity and make the changes necessary for it to coexist with the non-Islamic world instead of seeking to destroy all which is not Islam must be managed by those within Islam and not the remainder of the world. This is a great concept for those of us who are not Muslims as it frees us from any obligation to work to assist Islam in finding a new path. It allows those who are not Muslims to simply wipe their hands of the problematic situation and leave all the heavy lifting for those within the sway of Islam. Imagine if we had decided that the problem caused by the Nazis had to be solved by those who were part of the Nazi party et al. Where would such an idea, if followed by France, Britain, Canada and the United States have led? Well, it would probably not have been very pretty. There were those within the United States who thought that the entire Nazi war was a European problem and that it should be left to the Europeans to hash it out. Their logic was quite appealing as the United States just finished fighting a European War called, you will love this one, The War to End All Wars. These Americans, and many others who were on the fence or just tired of European catastrophic endeavors and waring for supremacy over one another, simply desired to be left at peace and unbothered with the world even if it was heading for Armageddon and going to Hades in a Handbasket. They were winning the popularist debate and had most Americans believing the European War was no business of the United States, as it would never come to American shores, it was not their problem. Well, the attack on Pearl Harbor blew all that thinking right out of the water and propelled America into the war. Those who claim that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and many in his Administration and the Congress and other leaders of business and society knew the attack was coming and did nothing to prevent it are missing the point. Had these leaders of the United States, both governmental and private, known about the coming attack, what were they supposed to do? Plead with Japan not to strike Pearl Harbor? The Japanese had already decided; so that was not going to work, as they would not alter their plans. Call for a draft before the attack and try to get some workable defense in place all but instantly? That would never have flown in Congress and even had they drafted the entire population, there would not have been sufficient pilots or aircraft to stop the attack. Once the Japanese decided to strike, the war was coming to America and there was nothing that could prevent that; so any venturing into excuses and what ifs is a waste.

 

There is a message in the run-up to America entering World War II, namely that some things are inescapable and the sooner this is realized, the sooner the problem can be addressed, solved, or, if necessary, eliminated and all at far less cost in treasure and manpower. Imagine if Britain had listened to Winston Churchill’s warnings when he was telling them of the coming conflagration and the inevitability of war with the Nazis. Imagine if instead of sending Neville Chamberlain to the Munich conference the British had sent Winston Churchill. The conference would not have reached any agreement, Czechoslovakia would not have been gifted to the Nazis, and just maybe Germany would have been stopped as France and Britain kept their mutual defense pact with the Czechoslovakian friends instead of simply whimpering as the Nazis were gifted half and rolled over the remaining half soon thereafter without any response from Czechoslovakia’s so-called allies. Hitler would have been stopped cold as soon as he had entered Czechoslovakia instead of months later after building his war machine using the existing arms factories he conquered as part of taking Czechoslovakia. Instead the war came after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in which the Nazis and Soviet Union divided up Poland between them and rolled across their respective borders crushing the Polish cavalry and military meeting in the middle and that was the end of Poland with their prisoners taken to their respective conquers’ camps and many were simply executed as the Nazis and Soviets both viewed the Polish people as inferior and unworthy of consuming oxygen. This led to the most devastating war in which an unbelievable number of the resultant casualties were civilians far exceeding the totals and percentages of previous wars (see comparison between World War I and II below). It is startling that many historians look at World War II and realize that much of the death and destruction could have been avoided and the leaders of nations who could have intervened early and, by taking the bull by the horns, have stopped Hitler cold preventing his attempt at world conquest and the eradication of the Jewish People. What if the world is approaching another of those critical points where unfolding history is about to hit a divergence and the next couple of years, maybe months or even weeks, could decide the entire future of humanity? We could not be more serious.

 

World War II Surpassed World War I
Civilian Deaths Against Military Deaths

 

Manchester, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, Nice, and decades of terrorist activities in Israel plus any others anybody cares to fill in are but the latest wave of Islamist attempts to conquer the world in the name of Allah in order to fulfill the prophesy from the Quran, the part written in Medina to be exact (for more on the bifurcated Quran, please read our short article as an introduction Which Quran, Mecca or Medina? which has included numerous helpful links in the comment section added by our readers). The initial Islamic attempt in world conquest began in the year 622 under Muhammad for the first decade and then Rashidun and then the Umayyad caliphs covering the first wave of Islamic expansion (see map below). This has been followed by other waves with near continuous aggressions of varying degrees. Some of the history might be of interest to many Westerners.

 

Islamic Expansion

 

If one were to ask most Americans when was the first terrorist attack on the United States in the modern era, meaning the past one hundred years, what would be your guess. Most people would likely claim it was the attack on the World Trade Center which then requires asking which attack. Too many would then answer the one on 9/11, of course. That is the state of history knowledge for far too many Americans. The truth is there was one before the 9/11/2001 hijacking of four American airliners crashing two, one each, into the World Trade Towers; one into the Pentagon and the last one was crashed by the passengers into a field not far outside of Pittsburgh upon learning of the intentions of the hijackers. There was a first attack on the Towers on February 26, 1993, when Ramzi Yousef and Eyad Ismoil drove a truck filled with 1,336 pounds of explosives into the parking garage under Tower One with coconspirators Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Ahmed Ajaj all led by the Blind Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. But even that is not the initial attack since the start of the Twentieth Century as for that we need go back to June 5, 1968, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, at 12:15 AM when Sirhan Sirhan Assassinated Democrat Party frontrunner candidate for President of the United States Robert F. Kennedy. The public was told that Sirhan was insane and simply was out of control, crazy, demented or anything other than terrorism by a Palestinian sympathizer born in Lebanon who identified with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian cause and murdered Robert Kennedy because he supported Israel. Yes, the truth will set you free and the assassination of Robert Kennedy was an act of terrorism aimed at Israel and the United States by an Arab Palestinian supporting terrorist.

 

But when it comes to conflicts with Islam and the United States there is an even earlier precedent. The United States fought two wars with Islamic forces known as the Barbary Pirates who were stealing ships through piracy demanding tribute from the owning nations and taking the crews as slaves. The major slave trade in the Mediterranean was called white slavery to differentiate it from the rest of slavery in the African continent where the Arabs and Muslims played a critical role in acquisition of the African natives which were then transferred to the coast where they were bought by European slavers and then sold to ship captains who would transfer them for trading across the world. The Barbary pirates collected tributes from every nation and got more and more greedy and at some point, the United States came to the decision they were not going to be blackmailed any more. Under President Thomas Jefferson, probably the greatest of all isolationists of the Founding Fathers, the United States Navy and Marines fought the Pasha of Tripoli Yusuf Karamanli after refusing to pay the demanded tribute of $225,000, which led to his declaring war on the United States. You could say that President Thomas Jefferson obliged him.

 

But wait, there’s more. After the United States had somehow managed to win the war of 1812 against Britain, the Barbary Pirates thought that the United States would be vulnerable and began their piracy again, demanding ransoms. The Regency of Algiers Mohamed Kharnadji who was followed by Dey Regency of Algiers Omar Agha insisted the United States resume paying tribute this time to Algiers as their ships now ruled the seas. President James Madison showed the same resolve as had Thomas Jefferson and again the Barbary Pirates were defeated. What is of interest, the Barbary Pirates never signed an actual surrender but instead insisted that any surrender was but a Hudna. Traditionally, a Hudna lasts a decade or until the forces of Islam believe they are capable of defeating their enemies. The Barbary Hudna lasted significantly longer than a decade but it appears that it is coming to its end and they believe that the United States is primed to fall right along with Europe, Israel, India and the remainder of the world is all ready for harvest and they are out to pick it clean.

 

Why, you might inquire, are they so dependent on using terrorism as a way to defeat the world? Well, the world has only themselves to blame for making it appear that terrorism is the route they can ride to total victory. They watched how through terrorism and a campaign of lies and propaganda they believe they are on the verge of destroying Israel and how the Europeans have all but folded before them with terrorism and infiltration leading the way. It is simply appearing to be working and so they will ride it for all it is worth. As long as the world remains in a coma ready to surrender over enduring any struggle, then Islam will continue to surge. The continued reaction to every terror attack by the European elite is to blame Israel and the growing anti-Semitism spreading across Europe, even ahead of and in excess to the numbers of Muslim refugees joining the already present Muslim populations. The excuse that the anti-Semitism is driven by Muslims sounds hollow when percentages of those holding numerous anti-Semitic tropes far exceeds the percentage of Muslims residing in most European nations with amongst the most threatening being Sweden, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. What has been amongst the most disturbing trends are the numbers of people in the developed world who blame Israel and Jews for the terrorism when it strikes their country. There are many who claim if only Israel would give the Palestinians and the Arabs what they demand, then their own nation would be fine and the terrorism would stop. Making this even more distressing is that many of these people know that what the Arabs and the Palestinians demand is all of Israel and the Jews within murdered to the last man, woman and child and they have little problem with such a sacrifice if it would keep them quiet for a few decades, enough to last for their lives as they care not about the future, just about the now and their future. Beyond their lives, they could not care less. The willingness to sacrifice Israel is made all the more evident when votes are taken in various United Nations agencies and in the General Assembly where European nations consistently abstain rather than support Israel against false claims and demands to wrench lands from Israel through votes most recently in UNESCO. The developed world can decide to end this awakening of Islam now or pay a horrific price once the majority of Muslim nations have developed nuclear weapons programs with each maintaining and equipping ICBM’s with twenty, fifty, hundred, three hundred, a thousand or more warheads. At what point will Europe and the United States awaken to the reality that Islam is incapable of taming Islam. The reason why is basic, the pacifists cannot prevent those intent on war from violence through passivity. Islam does not require every Muslim to Jihad, but every Muslim is required to either pay, house or otherwise support those who do commit to Jihad, or at the very least, lie in order to facilitate and occlude any evidence of Jihad. And the bad new is that Greater Jihad is warfare and violence to expand Islam until Islam is the only religion worshiped on Earth and Lesser Jihad is self-improvement and the juxtaposition of the two is Taqiyya (see below for definition). Lastly, there are those few true lunatics who feel if they cannot rule the entire world, then there should be no world for anybody in which to rule.

 

Taqiyya defined in plain and simple easy to understand terms

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Ill Placed Anger

 

President Obama made it so very clear, Omar Mateen was a ‘homegrown’ and a ‘lone-wolf’ from some unidentifiable deep well of violence which had ‘nothing to do with Islam, the religion of peace.’ The President was quite guarded of what we have come to identify as his precious ideological visions as to what exactly makes up Islam. Of course the President was far less coddling and defensive when it came to those who are not on his team. Here President Obama had pointed and viciously delivered vindictive over their audacity in criticizing his reluctance to tie Omar Mateen’s violent murderous spree naming it as ‘radical Islamist’ sharply attacking with precise words, President Obama shot forth, “For a while now the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?”

 

If this sounds vaguely familiar, then perhaps we can be of some assistance in identifying the similar phrase and where it came to be used. The culprit was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responding to Republican questions and sniping at her by their insistence to getting what she saw as an statement about Benghazi they could use against her in her coming predicted run for the White House when an exasperated Hillary Clinton lost her temper and let loose a storm brewing, her lips spitting out, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.” (emphasis ours)

 

Both seeming temper tantrums had something similar, they were both triggered by a refusal to actually name Islam as being at the root of the terrorism and that Islam has a radicalization problem which many on the left wish to refuse recognition and instead would prefer to protect Islam from its own radical elements than anger a growing constituency. These defenders of Islam refuse to allow the recognition that there exists Imams who are radicalizing Islamic believers in frightening numbers. They refute any ties between the Islamic State and Islam which are why they prefer to refer to the Islamic State as ISIS or ISIL without identifying what the first ‘I’ in each set of initials refers. Both were lashing out at political adversaries attempting to deflect their pointed accusations which were presumably attempts to viciously attack all Muslims and those who defend them. These attacks are almost universally aimed at Republicans and Donald Trump specifically. What would be amusing, if it were not for the mounting death toll, have been the opposing claims that those who claim a link between Islam and terrorism are needlessly generalizing thus potentially alienating peaceful Muslims while the other side claims they are refusing any relationship between radical Islam and the majority of peaceful Muslims.

 

Both sides actually agree on one particular item, that it will take the assistance of the majority of Muslims who are peace loving to save Islam. Where they differ is naming the challenge. The conservatives have no difficulty naming the enemy as the radicalized Islamists while the liberals blame misguided individual who uses their Islam as their excuse and there are select Imams who do a disservice to Islam with their radical message. The main differences come down to a single question, is the presumed numbers of innocent and peaceful Muslims really the vast percentage or are they an insignificant minority mostly found in the Western World. Then there are the precious Imams whose ‘sermons’ like those of the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was targeted for death by the CIA in 2011, are capable of reaching disaffected youths in their native language and turn them into weaponized Muslims in the next killing fields. Orlando was the most recent of these and the most deadly. Before Orlando, Florida there were others including San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015; Chattanooga, Tennessee on July 16, 20125; Morganton, North Carolina on December 18, 2014; Moore, Oklahoma on September 25, 2014; West Orange, New Jersey, on June 25, 2014; Seattle, Washington, on June 1, 2014 and Skyway, Washington, on April 27, 2014. These places and dates were from “What Makes Islam so Different?” The fact that most, if not all, of us cannot or do not remember these events even had we heard of them, is more a reflection on the media and their attempt to cover up Islamist terrorism as it does not fit their worldview and reflects poorly on President Obama the nation while under his and the Democrats handling of the narrative. By even simply listing these attacks on American citizens makes me guilty of feeding the too pervasive Islamophobia. The insanity becomes all the more perverse when one finds out that Islamophobia is not a fear, rational or irrational, of Muslims but rather the thought crime of implying that Islam could contain a radical and violent faction and that is just plain racist.

 

This is where the United States, almost every square millimeter of Europe and all too many segments of Israeli society have sunk. The leftists have so perverted the waters of communication that relating truths is a social misstep and going there may make you a social pariah which would mean not being invited to the next ten million Brie Cheese and Chianti parties. Oh my, how will we ever survive?

 

Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton

 

One thing we have been berated with is that in the upcoming American Presidential race there are two choices; one is sensitive, humane, understanding, loving, caring and simply wonderful while Donald Trump is boorish, impolite, hateful, vindictive and an all-around evil individual, but the media is trying to not be judgmental, simply reporting the facts. The choice is being presented as if one candidate will bring to the world peace and tranquility through intelligent and thoughtful beneficial rule while the other guarantees brash, America first the world be damned and taking the world to war and back to nationalistic barbarity. We see the choice somewhat different. We see one candidate bringing defenseless European socialist madness where the nation will go bankrupt, but not until our grandchildren will be in charge, so live it up while the charade lasts; or nationalist let’s see how much of what was once a great nation can be salvaged and turned away from following the European Union down the rabbit hole into a debt ridden death spiral. It is getting very close to too late and another four years of Obamanomics, and especially eight more years, will take the once great nation which reached from shore to shore with shires of golden wheat in between will fall to a point where feeding her own people may prove difficult as the creditors will take the entirety of our food production as it will be the last morsel with which to repay for the senseless spending. Yes, when it comes to socialism there is too much of what appears to be a good thing because, as Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The United States long ago ran out of other people’s money and has been living on monopoly money for quite some time as they found a new source; they electronically just kept adding money to the supply. This works for as long as interest rates remain near, at or below zero but once interest falls below zero the entire house of cards and fiat money crashes and the people resort to burning the money come winter as that is cheaper than paying the utility bill.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Political War in Aftermath of Pulse Nightclub, Orlando

 

The horrors and the toll in human life and limb makes anyone come to definitive conclusions on how to insure that such horrors never again darken our morning news. Reading the reactions in the news and online and each individual was adamant in their solution not only being the obvious solution but also inarguably the only possible conclusion any rational person could reach. What’s the problem then BTC? The main problem is people had fallen into two camps as distinctive as the day is long and nobody remarkably suggested what we see as a third solution just as possible of solving the problem as the others. There was one camp in which we find President Obama and Candidate Hillary Clinton. They agree that the real problem is the private ownership of guns and that if nobody had access to firearms then such crimes would never happen. The other camp which we find candidate Donald Trump where they claim the problem is radicalized Muslims. The former camp would accuse the second camp of Islamophobia. The second camp called the first on being unrealistic and ignoring a little impediment called the Second Amendment. What both sides missed was an easier solution to the problem, make reporting such news illegal. I know, we would be ignoring Amendment I, but since rights and the code of laws did not constrain the other two groups, why not throw in an easier if not more legal approach. Of course there would be another consequence of a law allowing only positive news stories; it would destroy news reporting until somebody discovered the work-around.

 

News reports could always take a positive slant on negative news such as we can all celebrate we were not crossing the street when two cars collided flying out of control and destroying a mailbox, isn’t it just wonderful there were no pedestrians who found themselves in the location in question. OK, sure we need some polish, but with time there would be formulae which could be implemented for virtually any evil being reported with a positive slant and avoiding any mention of the negatives. They could even point out how it was a fortunate circumstance that somebody called and an ambulance responded to transport the people for necessary treatment once again proving the great healthcare provided in the country. Well, maybe we should just leave the media free and not challenge Amendment I. As for the other two finger pointing claiming that either Islamists or firearms are to blame? Perhaps we should take them each in turn.

 

The claim that firearms were the problem and that, if only people were not permitted to own firearms, and all guns were removed from the world, then shootings like the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando would become impossible. Of course there is no mention that the removal of all firearms from the world is impossible as long as nations insist on keeping their militaries armed with, you guessed it, firearms. Making matters even worse, militaries use real fully automatic fire weapons as well as explosives and rocket firing weapons which some are capable or taking out entire rooms and small buildings as well as armored vehicles and downing aircraft, all a whole lot more destructive than anything generally out in the public currently. As long as there are weapons anywhere, there will be weapons everywhere, just the more illegal they are made the more sinister the people who will deal in them and the far higher the prices of firearms for which they will be sold. Further, as long as only military weaponry will be manufactured, the firearms which do make their way into the hands of the most determined of criminals will have far more destructive capabilities and possibly by leagues is likely as only slightly. Further, a determined killer or a mentally unbalanced one would still be capable of committing a crime of similar or potentially more devastating result in a similar scenario. Since it appeared that escape was not easily available for the victims in the club, a person armed with a sword of the quality and ability of those used in warfare since time immemorial, the resulting slaughter may have been even greater and the injuries far more horrific and the victims still just as incapable of defending themselves. This would be even more true had the perpetrator in such scenario would have armed themselves with leather armor, studded and spiked, chain linked helm and other items making them just as dangerous as any attacker in a closed room (see below). The main difference is a firearm is a ranged weapon but one could arm themselves with ranged weapons with a small version equally deadly crossbow which fires four inch darts. There are no limits to how deadly and devious to weapons beyond that of imagination, and human imagination has proved to be virtually limitless or at least not bound by laws of man.

 

Sword Alternative to Firearms Real and Imagined

 

So restricting weaponry would be just as futile as it would impossible; so what about the other side, limiting those believed to have dangerous beliefs or practices? This too has been tried in the past when science was young and religion was king. Their attempts to limit science proved only temporary and ineffectual as well. Discoveries came and science spread almost as far and as fast as the imagination could perceive new ideas and experiments to prove or disprove each postulation. It mattered little whether it proved or disproved as long as it produced answers which would simply generate more questions. There was no locking the box which is the human mind and it eventually proves preposterous to even try. The King of Spain sent an Armada to bring Protestant England back under the control of Rome and approved Christianity. At that time there was only the Church of Rome and the Church of England and the second was the young upstart. So initially religion attempted in Europe to regulate religion within defined boundaries and failed. Some claim that the spread of Protestantism indirectly led to the scientific revolution which spawned from the Protestant Reformation to the Reawakening, the Renaissance, then followed political revolution, industrial revolution, and then the greatest invention of mankind, for the first time since the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai the world gave people time to themselves, the weekend and private time. Jewish Law, Torah had conceived of the necessity for human beings to have time where work was put aside for a day and the Sabbath was observed where people could pursue private endeavors and learn which originally meant the study of Torah. Even the time spent in study of Torah allowed for time with family and relaxation from the daily burdens of toil and labor which even applied to the servant and the slave, which were more like one’s employees. The salary was clothing, housing, food and protection from facing the world alone with nothing and if one worked for a successful person, they might even have a small salary on top of everything else; otherwise, one would need to request their employer if they desired something beyond the basics.

 

That piece of history should serve to prove that the desires of the mind and the soul cannot be strapped and tied down by laws, edicts or any oppressive acts from an establishment or even the counterculture. The mind, the individual, the soul if you will, cannot be prevented from going wherever it is destined by the chain of experiences, influences and, yes, often the temptations of the forbidden. If “radical Islam” as a belief system were to be regarded as something forbidden, that would simply serve to make it all the more enticing and often to the most vulnerable and Islamic State gives a perfect example of the result of attempting such a ban. That is the problem with Donald Trump’s idea to ban Muslims for a period from entering the United States as that would just make those who did find their way over the border placed with such difficulties that radicalization would be made far easier as the concept that they were being beaten down and forced into the shadows. The best path has been proven time and again throughout history though more often societies have gone from the best to the worst method of facing differences in cultures. The tried and proven method is limited accommodation with reward for incorporation of the existing societal model while allowing for variance as long as it remains within legal standards. Acceptance goes a long way towards modifying behavior towards cooperation rather than conflict. That is not to say that all behavior is to me accommodated as there are, by necessity, limitations to acceptable behavior. An example would be the Aztecs could be permitted to dress as they wish but their practice of cutting out the beating heart as part of an annual ceremony would need to be prevented from the start. Human sacrifice is not an acceptable form of worship and some other means would have to be found. The same would be for animal ritual sacrifice. Sacrifice of an animal for a celebratory feast would also need to be regulated in some manner such that the animal does not suffer. Simply placing the live animal in a cage and rotating it over the fire would be unacceptable as would many cruel means for killing the animal, but if an accepted and humane death be performed and then the animal roasted and consumed, it might be extreme to many but it is not that far removed from taking a side of beef and roasting it on a spit at a huge celebratory feast where the meat is to be consumed. Granted, the majority would prefer smaller servings but how many have been to an all you can eat buffet where roast beef is carves off the bone for those who desire roast beef over say meatloaf.

 

Donald Trump’s seeming well timed but probably ill-advised suggestion that all Middle East immigration be ceased for a period of six months, where it could be done, would prove ineffectual as anybody wishing to reach the United States from the Middle East need only reach Turkey with whom there exist laws allowing for their immigration to the United States and even if not Turkey, the news informs us how easily any Middle East refugee can reach most of Europe and from there the United States again would be legal and relatively easy. There is no way to prevent a determined person from reaching the shores of the United States legally and most definitely illegally. Donald Trump’s claim that by making this ban it would prevent any terrorists from the Middle East from reaching America is utterly false as the terrorists are exactly those who would have the funds to defeat any regulation one could enact as their “blanket fix” for the problem. The solution is a full background check and with records as lax as they are and the turmoil making most people all but without any identifiable or especially documented history and once again it is the terrorist who would most likely be capable of meeting even those requirements. There is no absolute means of preventing terrorists from gaining entry to any nation as has been proven by the recent attack in Tel Aviv, as Israel has likely the most effective screening and tracking for terrorist and terror likely individuals; but still there are attacks and in great numbers as it is impossible to prevent those attacks committed by what are termed “lone wolves” as they have no traceable history of interaction with terror institutions or even other terrorists.

 

The best way to protect and prevent such horrific criminal carnage comes down to a select few things. Have a society which commits to equality, extends egalitarianism in all things, and provides opportunity. Further the people themselves need be welcoming, accepting of various cultures for as long as they remain within societal codes, enjoys respect of every individual and remembers from where they came as it sets where they will proceed. The laws must be equally applied and respected by all members of the society. The last thing is to remember that every person is a gem to be enjoyed and allowed to shine with their own special brilliance and every day offers equal opportunity for all to achieve. Beyond that is the government’s responsibility in making all safe and respecting of the laws and rights of one another. None of this is easily accomplished and no society has provided such a high standard for more than half a millennium. Some very select groups have managed to maintain such expectations of standard of their peoples and their identity we will leave for each reader to research and discover the identities for themselves as they may be quite surprised and the greatest surprise is amongst the select groups.

 

Beyond the Cusp