On October 29, 2002, we presented questions as to why the Moslem world hated the United States so much in an article entitled “Bad Fruit Result of Decades of One Sided U.S. Policy for the Middle East.” We stated that the time has come for us to look hard at the reasons for the vast hatred of the United State by much of the Moslem world and the roots thereof.

We must not forget the Crusades. In Elizabeth Hallam’s Chronicles of the Crusades she states: “The Crusades were the long-term result of the rise of Islam.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfillment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny. It states that in 1095 A.D. Pope Urban II granted absolutions to whomever would reclaim the Holy Land for Christendom. This began a two century war of Catholic Crusades against Moslem tyranny including the elimination of political and territorial control by the more radical sects of the Moslem religion. The wars waged by Catholic Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century.

Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 states the Crusade was a military expedition undertaken by Christians for the recovery of the Holy Land, the scene of our Savior’s life and sufferings, from the power of the infidels or Mohammedans. Several (7 to 9) of these expeditions were carried on from Europe, under the banner of the cross, from which the name originated.

The effect of these crusade expeditions was two fold. They tended to unite the Arab peoples who were mostly Moslems against the Europeans and they resulted in the breaking up of some of the power generated by the earlier expansion of the Mohammedan religion and corresponding empires. Clearly, this history and religious warfare did not endear the Moslem world to the Europeans.

The struggle over the Holy Land, however, has roots which go much further back into history than the Crusades, the Catholic Church or even the time of Christ. About 1450 B.C. Joshua began the military conquest of the lands of the Canaanites which Moses had proclaimed to the twelve tribes of Israel as the land of milk and honey that the Lord God had proclaimed for them.

Many chapters of Joshua involve the conquest by the army of the twelve tribes of Israel of the land upon which they founded the Kingdom of Israel.

But, Ancient Israel developed for themselves a civil war which greatly weakened them and broke the nation into two countries; the Northern Kingdom of Israel (comprised the Tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuben, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali and half of the Tribe of Levi and the Southern Kingdom of Judah (comprised mostly the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin and half of the Tribe of Levi). The Northern Kingdom of Israel was over run and conquered by the Assyrians about 722 B.C. and the Southern Kingdom of Judah was conquered by Babylonia about 598 B.C.

While the Tribe of Judah was only one of twelve tribes with ancient Biblical inheritances in the land of Israel, most of the Northern Tribes were carried away into captivity by the Assyrians and most of the Tribe of Judah was taken into Babylonian captivity. Some religious scholars believe that the Jews forfeited their religious claim to land of ancient Israel by falling away and that God therefor allowed their removal from the land.

When the Tribe of Judah was returned to Jerusalem 70 years later the country was called Judea, not the Kingdom of Judah. This area became known as Jerusalem under the Roman Empire. It is loosely called the Holy Land today comprising part of Lebanon, Palestine and Israel and being surrounded by Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

After the end of World War II certain powerful Jewish banking families, especially the Rothschilds, pushing through the Balfour declaration, moved to create a nation for the Jews in Palestine and re-assert their supposed ancient claims to that land based upon the days of Moses and Joshua in spite of the fact that for around 2500 years various other people, families, tribes and nations retained or bought and owned estates, farms, territory and infrastructure there. Great Britain, in accordance with the Balfour declaration, began transporting displaced Jewish refugees to Palestine.

Palestinian inhabitants living there were wrongfully and illegally displaced by force and terrorism, usually without any compensation. The Jews now claim historical land rights in the area of Ancient Israel based on the Biblical (Torah) accounts and they claim all of the land of Israel as their own, not just 1/12th of it. Europe’s support for this has not endeared the displaced Palestinians to the West.

The powerful banking families pushing this political/religious conquest of Palestine allowed the brutal killing and removal of the families living there and carved out a new modern state they called “Israel”. The predominant political movement behind this was termed Zionism. Much political and economic power was exerted among the Western countries to gain international acceptance of the Zionist idea and recognition of this new state regardless of protests and claims by the displaced Palestinians.

Much trouble has been stirred up over this new state of Israel. The United States and Britain were pressured int becoming major financial benefactors of this new state. In fact, huge sums of money (in the hundreds of billions of dollars) have been granted and spent by the United States (tax payer’’s money) in supporting and maintaining this new state called “Israel”. Many Jews have migrated to Israel from the United States, Europe and Russia to take advantage of this territorial aggression.

Various trouble was further stirred up by the Zionist leaders in Israel to justify Israel in militarily seizing even more territory from the surrounding neighbors and States in order to enlarge the territory of Israel (reminiscent of the Nazi Germany style of justifying their conquest of land in the 1940s for more living room). Surprisingly, the Zionists who were and are today the dominant political force in Israel took measures to exclude groups of Orthodox Jews and other persons of Jewish descent because of their more peaceful political views towards the Palestinians.

Twenty some odd nations (with mostly Moslem populations), namely Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia all became involved in fighting Zionist Terrorism and aggression being perpetrated by the State of Israel against Palestine. Wars have been fought involving most of these countries against Israel, but with the strong support of and military aid from the United States, Zionist Israel survives as a nation.

Generations of Moslem Arabs have learned to despise the United States for its apparent unfair foreign policy in supporting Israel in spite of her illegal actions against the helpless Palestinian people. Finally, although some Arab nations have come to recognize the right of Israel to exist, they also insist that the Palestinians be allowed to exist as well. Since these Arab nations and the Palestinians are largely Moslem, and since Israel seized the Holy Land including a key Moslem Mosque, it has developed deeply among the Moslems to oppose this Zionism which they identify as Jewish and thus the people, especially those under Israeli occupation tend to hate the Jews and their benefactors.

Several generations of Moslems have been raised under this general hatred of Israel, the Jews and Americans because we have been supporting Israel in such an obviously biased way. And now Israel has militarily invaded Palestine once again and has refused to pull its troops out in spite of a unanimous vote for that pull out by the United Nations and by direct insistence by President Bush for an immediate pull back of the Israeli Army. The Israeli military invasion of Palestine is fanning the flames of the Islamic Jihad against Israel and the West and will result in even more suicide bombings and possible military attacks by Moslem states.

The Zionists are trying to hide behind Bush’s War on Terrorism by claiming that the violent resistance being mounted by the Palestinian people against naked Jewish military aggression is terrorism. But, it is becoming rather brutally clear that Israel is a terrorist State fomenting some of the most severe forms of terrorism in the world today.

Bush repeats Mideast withdrawal demand
President says “I meant what I said” on call for immediate end to Israeli offensive

Even some of the American conservatives (and liberals) who are blinded by the politically correct propaganda to support Israel no matter what are finding it harder and harder to swallow the idea that the Palestinian people (victims) are the terrorists (acting in resistance mostly within their own occupied Palestine) against the Israeli Zionist invaders with their tanks, machine guns, attack helicopters and jet fighters.

The stark similarities of Hitler’s Nazis of World War II and of Sharon’s Zionists of today are sinking in. It isn’t a pleasant realization. And we Americans are getting the blame, shedding blood and having to spend money because of it. In fact, our defense of Zionist Israel is obviously the most immediate reason for 9-11 and the hatred of Islam against us. The Islamic radicals are now waging a Jihad against the United States which could easily fan into a World Religious War with the Moslem world which could be very bloody and bitter.

Clearly, the establishment of an independent Palestinian State with secure borders, having its own tanks and jet fighters with world pressure upon them to cease the suicide attacks against Jewish interests, would provide the area a real chance to establish peace and even commerce. This would be in our national interest because it would take the steam out of the Islamic Jihad against the United States and preserve the West’s access to oil supplies in the Middle East.

 Was not the creation of the United States of America a result of an independence movement against the then world order of the British Empire? Yea verily it was.

Did not the success of George Washington and the valiant few (3-5% of the Colonial population) who stood with him pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for the cause of American independence inspire other people to rebel and seek independence from the world’s colonial powers? Yea verily it did.

Did not these our forefathers Declare Independence on July 4, 1776 and then form a Confederacy of Colonies (States) under the Articles of Confederation of 1779 as an interim government? Yea verily they did.

Furthermore, was it not the desire and intent of these brave revolutionary American leaders to establish a more perfect union amongst their several states by preparing and signing a Constitution of 1789 which guaranteed a union of State Republics maintaining State’s rights and local government rather than allowing a new monarchy of a federal union to rule under a provisional king called President? Yea verily history clearly shows that was their intent.

Our founding fathers made provisions for a short term President to be elected by the states and planned for a fractured government to be installed under an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch to safeguard against the usurpation of power under the federal aspects of the union bureaucracy in favor of State’s rights and local control of most of the government. Yea, this they did.

Was this a perfect government and were our founding fathers without error? No, of course not. But, they formed the most magnificent new government against world monarchies that recent history had seen.

Benjamin Franklin reportedly answered when asked what kind of government had they formed as follows: On Sept 18, 1787 in response to a Mrs. Powell’s question. “Well doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?” B. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Did we keep it? No, I am afraid history firmly shows we did not keep it.

Soon, powerful and rich forces began vying for more power and economic control over each other among the former colonies. They began to bend the Constitution and the intent of the founders thereof and in some cases, even justifying violating some parts of that Constitution to further their private aims of wielding unfair economic advantage over others and in seeking more federal power. By the 1830’s the situation had become a serious conflict between various states, not all in the south either.

The final blow was the election of a known unscrupulous immoral man who championed the northern mercantile and industrial powers by desiring to consolidate, even more, federal power over the states and to build an even more powerful federal bureaucracy.

Especially in the southern agricultural states, but even including states in the East and large segments of populations in certain northern states, the election of Abraham Lincoln (a slave owner and believer in Negro inferiority) was seen as a final blow against the Republic referred to by Benjamin Franklin. Welcome to seldom mentioned facts about Abraham Lincoln who was championed as a hero by world communists and the Yankee Republican administration in Washington.

The result was the rapid secession of seven states and the formation of a new and independent nation called the Confederate States of America, carefully designed around the original intent of and the U. S. Constitution of 1789 itself. President Jefferson Davis (who owned no slaves) was elected as President of the CSA and Robert E. Lee (who owned no slaves) was made General of the Northern Virginia Army. The Capital of this new nation copied after that Confederacy founded by our founding fathers was Richmond, Virginia.

The President of the United States was still James Buchanan, pending the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. President Buchanan recognized the right of those seven states to secede and to form their own nation. He ordered the peaceful turn over of the forts, ports and naval yards in the south to troops of the new Confederacy. It appeared to most that the new CSA and the USA would be able to make this adjustment peacefully and continue as friends, neighbors and relatives as well as trading partners.

That all changed immediately upon the inauguration of the new Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who had corresponded with communist Karl Marx who was in exile in London. Lincoln ordered a cessation of the peaceful turnover of forts in the south to the CSA and then ordered a military attack upon the new country in a terrible war of Northern aggression reminiscent of the two British wars against American independence.

The Northern Yankee armies greatly outnumbered the Southern Confederate armies and the CSA did not have the resource reserves that the USA had and thus, by 1865, several of the Confederate armies had collapsed which is when General Robert E. Lee surrendered his Northern Virginia Army. Four other Confederate generals continued the war, mainly in Texas, Oklahoma and the Arizona Territory for 18 months longer.

Although, President Jefferson Davis was captured and imprisoned by Lincoln, he refused to surrender the Confederate States of America government. He was later released due to pressure by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, all of the Confederate soldiers just ran out of ammunition and food and simply went home.

The north sent in their armies, under orders from Lincoln, and replaced all of the State governments with governors and legislatures favorable to Washington without the will of the southern people being allowed. This was the beginning of the severe repression of the South called “Reconstruction”, which to some extent is still being practiced today both politically and economically against the South.

Men and women in the South have lately been attempting to educate their people with the idea of the Restoration of the legal government of the Confederate States of America. The main focus of this restoration of the CSA, however, is to accomplish this politically at the State levels and to avoid any type of military or terrorist action. The world has just seen a phenomenal breakup of the U.S.S.R. into independent nations.

The independence from Russia has mostly been accomplished with little or no bloodshed. Scotland has finally been able to re-establish a major degree of independence from Great Britain by electing their own legislature. The timing seems right for southerners interested in their Confederate heritage to begin anew in pushing for the restoration of the independent government of the Confederate States of America.

Yet, since the World Trade Center’s destruction of September 11, 2001, and the resulting war against terrorism, three things have happened. There has been a resurgence of patriotism for the United States after this attack which to some extent drained away some Confederate Patriotism, there has been a strong increase in police activity against possible terrorist groups in the United States and worldwide, and there has been the failure to differentiate between terrorist groups and separatist or independence groups.

President Bush’s Coalition appears to be working towards stopping all independence movements by stamping out such citizen’s movements in favor of maintaining established governments. The Bush Coalition does not seem to differentiate between terrorist groups and legitimate independence or separatist groups.

To be sure, first there were communist led and financed revolutions, which used terrorism and guerrilla military force to gain control of certain countries.

And then, since the apparent collapse of communism, we have seen the rise of Islamic militants and terrorists such as those financed mostly out of Saudi Arabia known as al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Yemen and Sudan who seem to focus on trying to establish a world-wide Islamic State and spread Islamism amongst the Moslem world.

But, we also see separatist groups who are Islamic in Kashmir and in the Philippine Islands and Indonesia.

Then we see the Middle East mess with Israel fighting against what they call Palestinian terrorism and the Palestinians claiming to be fighting for their independence and statehood.

The Bush administration must define “Terrorist and Terrorism” in order to be able to impartially differentiate between these various groups as to which are Terrorist and which are genuine independence movements.

Are India and Pakistan Terrorist States in their wars and other terrorist activities over Kashmir? The question cannot be answered impartially by Washington until they learn how to differentiate between terrorism and resistance or independence movements.

From a Confederate point of view, then, we would offer the following constructive suggestions:

Terrorism is where any individual, group or nation uses deadly force to attack another individual, group or nation. (State Criminal laws exist in the United States in connection with one individual attacking another with assaultive or deadly force and this is usually not termed a terrorist act, but a criminal act.)

But, where one group attacks another group, such as gang or mob warfare, and uses assaultive or deadly force, the term terrorism seems to apply, even though we may have criminal laws on the books to handle the problem.

Where a group organized in one nation attacks a group within another nation or the other nation itself, that is clearly international terrorism. Where one State attacks another State with assaultive and/or deadly force, this is clear terrorism otherwise called acts of war.

Finally, where a group within an occupied nation attacks the occupying forces within their own occupied territory, this takes on the clear appearance of resistance or an independence movement even if deadly force is used. Such groups should not be labeled “Terrorist” unless they cross into an occupying nation to launch their attack, but then it may have been in response to a new invasion or atrocities committed by the occupying nation that justified such a seemingly terrorist action.

(A hypothetical question to highlight this example would be as follows: Suppose that England had been a physical neighbor with a common land border with the colonies during the English war against the American Independence movement. Would it have been terrorism for General Washington to invade, with deadly force, London in retaliation?)

Another example of a violent war of resistance is the war for Irish Catholic independence being fought by the IRA in Northern Ireland.

However, an example of interest to Confederate Americans is the drive for independence by the people of Quebec which has been peaceful and patient and which appears likely to win their independence during this decade.

The war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan ended officially on December 22, 2001 when the new provisional government of Afghanistan took office. There will be mop up operations hunting down Oaeda and Taliban leaders, but the Bush administration will now seek terrorism in other countries including the United States.

We call for President Bush to better define and differentiate terrorism from resistance or acts of liberation so that the war on terrorism can have more definite limits and true secessionist or freedom movements not be hindered by the United States or its Coalition.