In “Brookings Institution’s New Idea: Try Failed Solutions Again” at FrontPage, I discuss the latest nonsense from the influential Qatar-funded think tank:
Bruce Riedel, senior fellow and director of the Brookings Institution’s Intelligence Project, published a piece in the Daily Beast last Sunday with the provocative title, “Why’s Al Qaeda So Strong? Washington Has (Literally) No Idea.” That is certainly true, but Riedel’s recommendations for how the political establishment can get a clue and finally defeat the jihadis are nothing but tired retreads of analyses that have been tried and have failed again and again. Coming from a think tank as influential as Brookings, this goes a long way toward explaining why neither party seems able to reevaluate and discard political points of view and plans of action, no matter how many times they lead to disaster.
Riedel rightly faults the U.S. for not meeting the ideological challenge that groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State pose, but then he advocates essentially what mainstream analysts on both the Left and the Right have advocated for years: establishing a State of Palestine, supporting “reform and justice” in Muslim countries, and working to end Sunni-Shi’ite sectarianism. These solutions have been tried, repeatedly, and every time they failed abysmally.
While Riedel is correct that the U.S. hasn’t countered the ideology of jihad groups, he shows no sign of knowing what that ideology really is. In fact, he demonstrates that he shares the same false premises that have led the U.S. government to its abysmal failure to understand why jihad groups are so strong and how they can be countered. Both Riedel and Washington policymakers assume that the appeal to Muslims of the stated goals and motivations of jihad groups — establishment of the caliphate, destruction of non-Sharia regimes, and ultimately global Islamic dominance — can be blunted, if not extinguished altogether, by essentially giving jihadis and Islamic supremacists some of what they want. They assume that in that event, the larger aggregate of Muslims will respond the way Westerners in secular democracies would respond: by accepting the compromise and rejecting more extreme solutions.
We have the record of the last thirteen years and more to show that this assumption is false.
First and foremost among Riedel’s faulty analyses is his scapegoating of Israel for the failure to achieve peace with the Palestinians. “Unfortunately,” Riedel laments, “for six years the Obama team has tried to push the two-state solution without any success. It rightly blames both Israeli and Palestinian intransigence for its failure. But the core issue is Israel’s refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank.”
One word exposes the falsity of this analysis: Gaza. Anyone who still thinks after the Gaza withdrawal that a Palestinian state would bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians (and yes, I know they are legion, and in both parties, and in all the corridors of power in the U.S. and Europe) hasn’t been paying attention. We were told in 2005 that “occupation” was the problem, and if Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Gazans would turn to peaceful pursuits. Only a few people, including me, warned that Gaza would just become a jihad base for newly virulent attacks against Israel. Events proved us correct.
Now Riedel wants Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria, aka the West Bank, and assures us that this withdrawal from this “occupation” is really the one that will finally bring peace and take the wind out of the jihadis’ sails. A Palestinian state, he says, will “severely undermine” al-Qaeda’s appeal “and over time dry up its base” — and he claims this even after acknowledging that “Israel’s destruction” is al-Qaeda’s goal.
Why would the establishment of a Palestinian state now, after the Arab Muslims rejected it in 1948 and the “Palestinians” rejected it in 2000 (and other times) bring peace when the goal of Israel’s total destruction, which Hamas has repeatedly and recently reiterated, would remain? Why would another Israeli withdrawal accomplish what earlier Israeli withdrawals — not just from Gaza, but also from Sinai and southern Lebanon — did not?
Riedel doesn’t consider these questions. He can’t, because any honest answer would show his analysis to be false and based on wishful thinking.
Then Riedel goes on to advocate another failed remedy, claiming that “the extremists’ narrative argues that only violent jihad can bring about change and justice in the Islamic world. They argue the Arab spring proves that peaceful protests and demonstrations, elections and democratic change don’t work in Arabia and the world of Islam. The failure of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt is cited as evidence that ‘moderate’ Islam is too weak to fight the Zionist-Crusader conspiracy and it’s [sic] Quisling allies like Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian army.”
Consequently, he says, “chaos and failed states, not democracy, are what the foreseeable future holds for Arabia. But a Western policy that is blind to the urgent need for reform and justice is certain to end in catastrophe. More immediately, it cedes the ideological battle to al Qaeda’s simple solution that only jihad brings change. Close attachment to autocratic regimes by the West pays short-term dividends but will antagonize generations of Muslims.”
Yet this was precisely the Obama Administration’s policy when it turned against Hosni Mubarak and warmly endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. This was the analysis Obama was following when he aided the Libyan jihadis against Gaddafi and the Syrian jihadis against Assad (although in the latter case the rise of the Islamic State has exposed his Syria policy as confused and incoherent).
Riedel mentions the fall of the Ikhwan regime in Egypt as part of the jihadis’ recruitment rhetoric, but he misses its real import: when the U.S. followed his recommendations and stopped backing dictators in Muslim countries, favoring instead popular revolutionaries and the “democratic process,” the result was not stability and the weakening of jihad groups, but chaos and anarchy in Libya, unrest and instability in Egypt, and the strengthening of jihad groups the world over. The Brotherhood regime in Egypt fell because many secular Muslims don’t want to live under Sharia oppression. However, Sharia advocates are numerous in Egypt and other Muslim countries — so the result of backing “democracy” in Egypt and other Muslim countries was not the establishment of peaceful, stable Sharia regimes (which would not be a desirable outcome anyway, cf. Saudi Arabia and Iran), but more violence. The dictators were bloody and reprehensible; the “democratic process” in all too many Muslim countries has resulted in regimes that are scarcely less bloody and far less stable.
Nonetheless, Riedel says, “Full speed ahead.” What would he say if there were a free election in Iraq and Syria now and the Islamic State won, or even got a significant percentage of the vote? He seems to assume, as George W. Bush and so many others assumed, that elections in Muslim countries would lead to the establishment of pro-Western, secular, stable republics. It has never happened. Why will it happen next time?
Riedel then offers yet another faulty analysis: “The extremist message also encourages sectarianism and intolerance. The Shia are portrayed as false Muslims and brutally attacked to encourage Sunni-Shia hatred. Sectarian strife now empowers the civil wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen and Al Qaedaism flourishes in the chaos. The West says far too little about the cancer of sectarianism.”
Then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this about it in 2007: “There’s still a tendency to see these things in Sunni-Shia terms. But the Middle East is going to have to overcome that.” The Bush Administration tried in numerous ways to help them overcome it in Iraq. It held one-person, one-vote elections that resulted in a Shi’ite regime in Baghdad — an outcome that was absolutely predictable, since Shi’ites are a majority in Iraq. That regime was supposed to include Sunnis. It was absolutely predictable also that it did not manage to do so, both because it didn’t want to and Sunnis didn’t want to participate anyway.
The Sunni-Shi’ite divide is 1,400 years old. The history of Islam is filled with occasions when it erupted into violence. The idea that the non-Muslim West can heal this or should even try to do so is as hubristic as it is myopic, and shows that Riedel (and Condoleezza Rice, and myriad others) have no idea of the history or beliefs of either group.
That is no surprise. The real reason why the U.S. and the West in general haven’t confronted the ideology of jihad groups is because they refuse to admit that it even exists. They insist that Islam is peaceful and that groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State have nothing to do with Islam. They don’t have any curiosity about how this supposed misunderstanding of Islam came to be so widespread and powerful, and they have never pressed Muslim groups that ostensibly reject it to do anything to blunt its appeal for young Muslims.
So Riedel is right: Washington has no idea why al-Qaeda is so strong. Neither does he. And a strong indication of why is Riedel’s affiliation with Brookings, a Qatar-funded group that publishes justifications for jihad terror and gives jihad terror supporters and enablers access to the world’s most powerful people. It also is strongly pro-Hamas and anti-Israel.
Brookings is responsible to an immense degree for the application of these failed policies over the last few years. It should be recognized for what it is and not allowed to lead the U.S. over the cliff yet again.
Carlos Danger says
The Washington establishment, including the talking shops like Brookings, lacks the intellectual honesty to even describe the problem, much less come up with a workable set of solutions.
Until they can actually name the enemy, we will be officially stuck with “workplace violence”.
Joginder Singh says
The clue Sherlock is in the “Arab oil money” bit here is lots of petro-dollars that say islam is the religion of peace and has no evil intentions as to a global islamic master-race opps caliphate
mortimer says
Agree with Carlos and Joginder. Everyone is pretending the elephant (Islamic doctrine of conquest) is not in the room.
(Nope, the poop didn’t come from the elephant…must be from somethin’ else.)
bindon blood says
The problem is quite simple and self evident,it is called Islam. Islam is inherently anti anything and everything that is not Islam.Jihad is a fundamental part of Islam. The Caliphate and world domination is an inherent part of Islam. Western politicians are expecting Muslims to abandon Islam,that’s is actually what would need to happen to enable their solutions to actually work. It cannot and will not happen. The west should be supporting and strengthening Israel because she is a front line defence against Islamic Jihad.
BC says
The only thing they need to do is look back 80 years at Nazi Germany and Hitler’s vision of the master race overcoming every other country and forcing its will upon them. Substitute the Islamic master race the Umma the ‘philosophy’ of which is to convert everybody to islam or force them to submit and pay the tax. Alternatively kill anyone who opposes them.
mortimer says
Exactly. Just as Nazism had to be debunked for there to be peace, Islam must be debunked because of its doctrine of world conquest or there can never be peace. The ummah is another ‘master race’ appointed by the ‘master religion’.
Muslims want to be masters and look at us as their potential slaves.
jewdog says
I am particularly worried that we will overdo the offensive against ISIS greatly to the benefit of the Iranian puppet government in Baghdad. The Sunni-Shiite divide can be exploited to our advantage, assuming we had decent advisors, which we don’t.
Wellington says
Bruce Riedel belongs to one of the most destructive group of people on the planet. That group is the intellectual class. As George Orwell, Paul Johnson and other very sensible people over the generations have noted in one way or another, perhaps no class of people have done more damage to mankind than have the intellectuals (Karl Marx is a sterling example).
Part of the reason for this, I believe, is that ordinarily (and thank God for the exceptions) the smarter one is the less common sense that person has——and common sense is critical to good government and sound policy. Well, as JFK said, he had rarely ever met an intellectual “with both feet on the ground.” I submit that Bruce Riedel does not have both feet on the ground or perhaps even one.
mortimer says
Bruce Riedel is one of those intellectuals who arrogantly DISMISSES all religious motives due to his religious illiteracy, especially illiteracy regarding Islam. It will take Bruce Riedel more than reading A SINGLE BOOK about Islam to learn about Islam! It takes ten years of study to master the complexity of Islam. Islam is a convoluted, contradictory lunatic’s religion.
mortimer says
Bruce Riedel ASSUMES the ‘grievance theory’ can explain Islam. WRONG!
RonaldB says
Riedel uses the “all or nothing” fallacy.
This fallacy can be illustrated by the defense of Communism before even the Communists acknowledged the truth that Communism led to poverty and stagnation. The argument was that Russia, China, Cuba and the other Communist states were poor, not because they were Communist, but because the Communism they implemented was not pure enough. The argument was, Communism worked, but it had to be implemented as described by Karl Marx. It was the half-measures, such as the application of nationalism by Stalin in stead of the internationalism of Trotsky, that accounted for the failures.
So, the argument of Riedel and the Brookings Institute is that the measures so far taken by Washington have failed because the necessary steps have not all been taken, and therefore, the present situation does not represent the peace and harmony which would be present if only Israel totally accedes to the Palestinian demands, including the conflicting demands of Al Fatah and Hamas.
Logically, when a partial solution is applied, and the results turn out worse than before, it is an indication that the solution itself is flawed. There has to be a very good reason, backed up by empirical evidence, that the partial steps were worse than doing nothing.
Unfortunately, academics and researchers have a tendency to encapsulate themselves into self-contained groups, reviewing each other’s articles and ideas, strong-arming students into reflecting their ideas, and totally ignoring any criticism from outside the reservation.
Wellington says
I agree, RonaldB. Your post reminded me of that silly Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, who, when challenged about Obama spending trillions upon trillions to “revive” the economy with little result, replied that Obama simply didn’t spend enough. In other words, Krugman, like Riedel, like sundry others when presented with evidence that contradict their theory, can’t acknowledge mistake and take the stupid and/or cowardly way out by doubling down.
A lot of doubling down is going on these days. With respect to Islam. With respect to financial matters. With respect to climate change. With respect to events in Ferguson, Missouri. With respect to…, with respect to…., with respect to….
mortimer says
Agree. The people of Egypt thought that maybe ‘pure’ Islam would solve their problems, but ‘pure’ Islam under the MB was a nightmare!
Now they want to go back to ‘impure’ Islam, a laid back, take-it-or-leave-it Islam where you can do what you want AS LONG AS you don’t CRITICIZE ISLAM!
The Egyptians are crafty, but large numbers of them are still stupid enough to think there are answers in Islam that they still haven’t tried…maybe we could even yet have missed something?
Muslims! Don’t be idiots. After 1400 years of failure and rivers of blood, give it up. Islam is a failure as a political system!
Salah says
“The failure of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt is cited as evidence that ‘moderate’ Islam is too weak to fight the Zionist-Crusader conspiracy and it’s [sic] Quisling allies like Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian army.”
It’s the other way around, stupid.
The Muslim Brotherhood government failed in Egypt precisely because the Egyptians know what you pretend not to know. They know that the Muslim Brotherhood are anything but ‘moderate’, that they represent the true face of Islam in all its ugliness, and the people have rejected this “ugly face” of Islam.
By doing so, the Egyptians have “subtly” rejected Islam itself (they don’t know it yet, but some of them do.)
This is why this proud people removed the Muslim Brotherhood thugs from power… once and for all.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-end-of-muslim-brotherhood.html
Mike Murphy says
Robert, you & Daniel Pipes are the best two observers of this Islamist-Jihadist wave of attacks.
So, what should the response of the West be? Crusades?
Is a war between civilizations the answer?
Or, is there a peaceful, moderate way to end this “clash”?
What am I missing?
Salah says
Sorry Mike, but I felt the need to jump in.
Yes, there a peaceful, moderate way to end this “clash”: a massive and peaceful popular uprising to remove ALL our PC leaders from power. They’ve done it in Egypt and it worked like a charm, without having to fire one single shot:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-end-of-muslim-brotherhood.html
We also have two other “solutions”:
1- A bloody civil war to remove the traitors.
2- A disgraceful submission to Islam.
mortimer says
What you’re missing is that we must DEPROGRAM Muslims and debunk Islam so no reasonable person will follow it.
Darren says
How do we deprogram 1400 years of programing? They have access to the world wide web, you think this might have helped, or western programing ect that doesn’t help. What if they actually like living in the 7th century what then? Even when they come to the West many of them still practice the same nonsense. What if we really do have hundreds of millions of terminators roaming the earth?
Darren says
Also when your family and your friends are part of something and your society operates a certain way and has been for 1400 years you are most likely to go along with it too. It is just human nature, people want to be a part of something and they are also influenced by peer pressure. I think the world wide caliphate manifest destiny thing simply runs too deep as well. I don’t want us to have to kill hundred of millions of people either, but how do we make this stop?
They are winning against us, as anyone who follows this stuff knows Europe is in some dire straights. I don’t see any answer other than bloodshed on a grand scale to end this, and I don’t like saying that. I’m not some hate filled mad man who enjoys killing, though yes I wouldn’t mind taking out a few jihadists, but that’s because jihadists kill innocent people constantly. No one in power or influence is taking this seriously and treat it as a law enforcement issue, it’s much bigger than that. I’m simply some blue collar worker not some great thinker maybe if we can get some to start putting their brain power to coming up with solutions to this problem they can think of something better than just wiping a bunch of them out and making them fear us more than jihad. As it stands now that is what it’s going to take to end this madness. If you disagree I’d be happy to hear your thoughts or anyone else’s for that matter.
pongidae rex says
No one gets it, not even JW. The Islamic world is grossly overpopulated, with the highest birthrates on the planet; already at 7+ Billion human beings and growing. Since procreation is explicitly weaponized by all Muslim sects, IS and the other Jihadi orchestrated chaos is simply how Muslims deal with overpopulation. You kill everyone that you can, as commanded by the Koran, and turn the survivors into migrants headed for the West. This empties territory for…YOUR brand of Islam. You accomplish two objectives simultaneously. Trust me, that is what is happening, and that is why this debacle has no solution. Don’t expect to see a ‘one child’ policy in an overpopulated Muslim country. Ever. This is a religion where slaughter is the solution to every problem.
The West needs to quarantine the Islamic world the same way the human body grows a cyst around a stubborn infection that will not heal. This cannot be fixed.
mortimer says
The Islamic birthrate is plummeting. 60% of Muslim women are going to school and 60% now go to university in many Muslim countries. This is causing a dropping birthrate. Soon, Muslim women will demand jobs, and a social revolution will occur which is already under way. One sign is that women are demanding to drive and vote in Saudi Arabia in spite of the personal risk. Staying in the home will not be enough for these educated women. Malala is the tip of the iceberg. The solution is to educate Muslim girls. They will make the revolution. The lower birthrate will work against Islam.
Darren says
They will be put down without mercy. Power comes from a barrel of a gun and fear and intimidation it always has it always will. We humans claim to be evolved from our ancestors but we are still driven by the same base impulses. We call this human nature, it will most likely always be with us too. Things like religions that impose rules have helped curb this, but it is still very common. The true danger of islam and the appeal of islam is it gives moral sanction and even rewards in the after life every dark impulse and desire a human can have.
The ideology of islam appeals to the most dangerous segments of the population and actually pours fuel on a fire encouraging them give in to the dark impulses and desires. Islam fuels human nature and magnifies this dark passenger that is in all of us. Yes we all have dark impulses and desires but most of us put a lid on them this is called civilized behavior. We are in control of our human nature. Humans are brutal ruthless creatures, we are in fact the most ruthless creature on the planet by far. We can invent cool things invent new ideas for government ect, but humanity still has that dark passenger many people myself included refer to it as human nature. That is the true danger of islam, you have a religion and ideology that says ya go right ahead do it in fact we even will sanction it and you will be rewarded in the after life.
Darren says
Another thing islam has this whole manifest destiny thing going on. People love belonging to something, and many people want some kind of meaning in their life, when they find it often time there is no meaning life just is, they just search that much harder for one and often times are lead astray. Islam also victimizes these people and gives them something, they have both a religion and some grand cause to fight for. Who doesn’t want some imagined glory fighting for some noble cause bigger than themselves? The cause isn’t noble I’m simply saying in their minds it is. Islam also appeals to the disinfranchised in socities, which is why so many criminals embrace it as well. How do we deal with these issues since they go much deeper than mere religion and delve into human psychology who knows. I’m just simply stating what I’ve observed as a blue collar dude.
Ryan Muhammad says
Until our leaders are willing to say, “Muhammad’s belief in violent jihad (Bukhari 52.220 ‘I’ve been made victorious with terror’) as the way to spread Islam is the root problem”, the Islamic problem will only get worse.
As for Condoleezza Rice’s statement, “There is still a tendency to see these things in Sunni-Shia terms. But the Middle East is going to have to overcome that”, first she and others like her need to realize this is NOT exclusively a “Middle East” problem. Pakistani Sunnis blowing up Pakistani Shi’ite mosques and beheading Shi’a kicking their heads down the street like a ball are NOT in the Middle East. This is a Muslim problem, WHEREVER Muslims are, whether in Muslim or non-Muslim countries. We just see it manifest more in Muslim-majority countries.
Rice needs to address Muhammad himself as the root cause of the Sunni-Shi’a conflict:
“My people will be divided into 73 sects … Everyone will go to hell, except one … the religion which is professed by me and my companions.” (Mishkat Vol. I Chapter 6:2).
Because of Islamic doctrine, Sunnis and Shi’a do NOT consider each other to be Muslim, rather takfiri (fake Muslims). If this just remained in the theological realm, no one would care. But because “beautiful pattern of conduct” Muhammad set the example of murderous rage against people not agreeing with him or “insulting” him, Sunnis and Shi’a murder each other. Muhammad attacked his own Meccan people. Muhammad murdered Jews (like Bani Quraiyza) for not accepting him as their false prophet. Muhammad had murdered defenseless women like Asma b. Marwan for “insulting” him.
Going off of his murderous example, the generation of Muslims after him follower suit and murdered apostates (Ridda wars) and the Sunnis murdered Ali’s grandson Hussain, which cemented the Sunni-Shi’a divide for all time.
Sunni and Shi’a doctrine, when it comes to things like how Muhammad died, is like night and day. Sunni doctrine attributes it to a Jewish lady, the wife of Kinana whom Muhammad had tortured over money. Shi’a say it was Aisha and Hafsa, the daughters of the first two Sunni Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar. I saw a video of Shi’a torturing and mutilating a Sunni just because his name was Omar / Umar. Sunnis calls Aisha Muhammad’s favorite wife and praise Abu Bakr and Umar as part of the best generation of Muslims because that is what Sunni doctrine teaches.
Until C. Rice and others like her face up to this, they will continue coming up with delusional solutions which only make the problem worse. Let her gather the Mullah’s of Iran and the Sunni leadership of Al-Azhar University and try to get them to agree that Sunni and Shi’a are Muslims and they are both going to Jannah and that they will leave disputes over Aisha, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hassan and Hussain in the past. She would get a real lesson in Islamic “peace”, which is exactly why she and others like her would never do that. They would have to face reality, and that is something many Democrats and Republicans don’t want to face: Islam itself is the problem because of Muhammad and the Qur’an.
Darren says
How do you settle a 1400 year blood feud? It’s like the Hatfields and Mccoys on steroids. I take a different approach we should play upon this hatred and have them wipe each other out or at least stay preoccupied enough so they aren’t as busy killing infidels. Then we deport all muslims from the west quarantine the Mid East of the muslim cancer, then focus on the pockets of muslim aggression in places like Africa and wipe them out. The threat is then contained. Sure they will manage to slip by us from time to time but it won’t be on the grand scale like it is.
Darren says
How would you deal with this threat other than overwhelming force? I’ve been racking my brain trying to think of a different solution. Granted I’m no great thinker I’m just a blue collar mill worker, so I am hoping smarter people than I can think up of a better solution to this very real problem.
MikeM says
Seems to me pedophilia is more common in Muslim lands than in the West, perhaps because Mohammed was a pedophile. Anyway, from what I read & understand, the PTSD resulting, is a burning anger within the victim, who develops ranging anger against both the world, AND a raging anger against him/herself. Tells me that Muslim lands are OVERFLOWING WITH SMOLDERING VICTIMS who are like sticks of dynamite with fuses burning at both ends: All they have to be is “aimed” in the designated direction, and they will be willing suicide bombers.
Anyone else see that?
I know there has been, & remains, a pedophilia problem among priests, boy scout leaders, & college football coaches in America & Europe. However, these men KNOW they are doing something wrong. In Muslim lands, it is considered RIGHTEOUS behavior, because such men are simply following the example & advice of Mohammed & Allah. I mean, why the “heavenly emphasis on 72 virgins, PLUS 12 prepubescent boys…….”???
Have I got that right?
Joe says
You should stop expecting anything but jihad-by-discourse from the Brookings Institution. Look who now owns it.
http://vladdi.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/enemedia-qatari-bought-brookings-institution-think-tank-apologists-for-jihad-terror/
lester says
Before the Washing establishment and the West are able to comprehend anything at all, they Must acknowledge who is in Charge and holds control of All things, both good and evil! This now is evident today of the blind leading the blind, disillusioned at all the failures sought by mere men’s ideas based on greed, power and might, and personal authority. God places Specific men in authority at times to punish nations for turning away from Gods plan for our lives and has to punish the people consequently, for disobedience. All have sinned, and God is No respecter of persons but repentance and forgiveness must be applied by each individual, both Now and at the judgement seat of Christ! Seek Truth and turn away from lawlessness in every form as sin is the Lie from our adversary who today knows time grows short in taking as many to the flames with him that he can deceive. Watch the nation of Israel as the barometer of God as he watches over his chosen ones to survive in the long 2,000 year battle of jealousy and hate by those receiving less a blessing. The whole world is blessed by the gifts it receives handed down from the Jewish people and not ‘reject’ by some because of its source. Consider: What kind of a God of high authority could condone the cutting off of another’s head if that person had done nothing to physically harm another person? Morality and conscience isn’t even to be considered in such an act even with a wild animal– this cannot be condoned, yet some feel they are to be rewarded for such a thing? A despicable act of heathenism by such lawlessness can only intensify the flames of their judgement for eternity! May God be true, and every man a liar.