![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Radical Islam vs. Civilization
an interesting reading, despite the usual matras about the mythical "moderate islam".
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4254
The problem is not so much a clash of civilizations, but a clash of civilization and barbarism.
The world civilization consists of civilized elements in every culture banding together to protect ethics, liberty and mutual respect. The real clash is between them and the barbarians.
What I mean by barbarians ... are ideological barbarians. This is what emerged in the French revolution in the late 18th century. And the great examples of ideological barbarism are fascism and Marxist Leninism – they, in their course of their histories have killed tens of millions of people.
But today it's a third, a third totalitarian movement, a third barbarian movement, namely that of radical Islam. It is an extremist utopian version of Islam. I am not speaking of Islam the religion, I am speaking of a very unusual and modern reading of Islam. It has inflicted misery (as I mentioned Algeria and Darfur, before), there is suicide terrorism, tyrannical and brutal governments, there is the oppression of women, and non-Muslims.
It threatens the whole world:. Morocco, Turkey, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, you name it, Afghanistan, Tunisia, and not just the traditional Muslim world, but also Russia, France, Sweden, and I daresay, the United Kingdom.
The great question of our time is how to prevent this movement, akin to fascism and communism, from getting stronger.
Like fascism and communism, radical Islam is a compelling way of seeing the world in a way that can absorb an intelligent person – to show him or her a whole new way of seeing life. It is radically utopian and takes the mundane qualities of everyday life and turns them into something grand and glistening.
Those of my political outlook [classical liberal] are alarmed by Islamist advances in the West. Much of the Left approaches the topic in a far more relaxed fashion.
Why this difference? Why generally is the right alarmed, and the left much more sanguine? There are many differences, there are many reasons, but I'd like to focus on two.
One is the sense of shared opponents between Islamists and those on the left. George Galloway explained in 2005, "the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies," which he then went on to indicate were Israel, the United States, and Great Britain.
And if you listen to the words that are spoken about, say the United States, you can see that this is in fact the case. Howard Pinter has described America as "a country run by a bunch of criminal lunatics." And Osama Bin Laden called the United States, "unjust, criminal, and tyrannical."
Noam Chomsky termed America "a leading terrorist state". And Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a Pakistani political leader, called it the "biggest terrorist state."
The second is that on the Left one finds a tendency to focus on terrorism – not on Islamism, not on radical Islam. Terrorism is blamed on such problems as Western colonialism of the past century, Western "neo-imperialism" of the present day, Western policies—particularly in places like Iraq and the Palestinian Authority. Or from unemployment, poverty, desperation.
I would contend that it actually results in an aggressive ideology. I respect the role of ideas. I believe that not to respect them, to dismiss them, to pay them no attention, is to patronize, and possibly even to be racist. There is no way to appease this ideology. It is serious, there's not an infusion of money, there's no amount of money that can solve it, there is no change of foreign policy that can make it go away.
I would argue to you, ladies and gentlemen, it must be fought and must be defeated as in 1945 and 1991, [applause] as the German and the Soviet threats were defeated. Our goal must be, in this case, the emergence of Islam that is modern, moderate, democratic, humane, liberal, and good neighborly. One that is respectful of women, homosexuals, atheists, whoever else. One that grants non-Muslims equal rights with Muslims.
To the extent that we all work together, against the barbarism of radical Islam, a world civilization does indeed exist – one that transcends skin colour, geography, politics, and religion.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4254
The problem is not so much a clash of civilizations, but a clash of civilization and barbarism.
The world civilization consists of civilized elements in every culture banding together to protect ethics, liberty and mutual respect. The real clash is between them and the barbarians.
What I mean by barbarians ... are ideological barbarians. This is what emerged in the French revolution in the late 18th century. And the great examples of ideological barbarism are fascism and Marxist Leninism – they, in their course of their histories have killed tens of millions of people.
But today it's a third, a third totalitarian movement, a third barbarian movement, namely that of radical Islam. It is an extremist utopian version of Islam. I am not speaking of Islam the religion, I am speaking of a very unusual and modern reading of Islam. It has inflicted misery (as I mentioned Algeria and Darfur, before), there is suicide terrorism, tyrannical and brutal governments, there is the oppression of women, and non-Muslims.
It threatens the whole world:. Morocco, Turkey, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, you name it, Afghanistan, Tunisia, and not just the traditional Muslim world, but also Russia, France, Sweden, and I daresay, the United Kingdom.
The great question of our time is how to prevent this movement, akin to fascism and communism, from getting stronger.
Like fascism and communism, radical Islam is a compelling way of seeing the world in a way that can absorb an intelligent person – to show him or her a whole new way of seeing life. It is radically utopian and takes the mundane qualities of everyday life and turns them into something grand and glistening.
Those of my political outlook [classical liberal] are alarmed by Islamist advances in the West. Much of the Left approaches the topic in a far more relaxed fashion.
Why this difference? Why generally is the right alarmed, and the left much more sanguine? There are many differences, there are many reasons, but I'd like to focus on two.
One is the sense of shared opponents between Islamists and those on the left. George Galloway explained in 2005, "the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies," which he then went on to indicate were Israel, the United States, and Great Britain.
And if you listen to the words that are spoken about, say the United States, you can see that this is in fact the case. Howard Pinter has described America as "a country run by a bunch of criminal lunatics." And Osama Bin Laden called the United States, "unjust, criminal, and tyrannical."
Noam Chomsky termed America "a leading terrorist state". And Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a Pakistani political leader, called it the "biggest terrorist state."
The second is that on the Left one finds a tendency to focus on terrorism – not on Islamism, not on radical Islam. Terrorism is blamed on such problems as Western colonialism of the past century, Western "neo-imperialism" of the present day, Western policies—particularly in places like Iraq and the Palestinian Authority. Or from unemployment, poverty, desperation.
I would contend that it actually results in an aggressive ideology. I respect the role of ideas. I believe that not to respect them, to dismiss them, to pay them no attention, is to patronize, and possibly even to be racist. There is no way to appease this ideology. It is serious, there's not an infusion of money, there's no amount of money that can solve it, there is no change of foreign policy that can make it go away.
I would argue to you, ladies and gentlemen, it must be fought and must be defeated as in 1945 and 1991, [applause] as the German and the Soviet threats were defeated. Our goal must be, in this case, the emergence of Islam that is modern, moderate, democratic, humane, liberal, and good neighborly. One that is respectful of women, homosexuals, atheists, whoever else. One that grants non-Muslims equal rights with Muslims.
To the extent that we all work together, against the barbarism of radical Islam, a world civilization does indeed exist – one that transcends skin colour, geography, politics, and religion.
ISLAMIC TERRORISM & CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
(Anonymous) 2007-03-03 08:19 pm (UTC)(link)(1) THREAT OF BARBARIAN ISLAMIC CALIPHATE EMPIRE: Christian America believes that Wahhabi, Arab Islamic Terrorists flushed with Oil incomes, aim to establish "an Islamic Caliphate covering a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia -and it wouldn't stop there. The US Vice-President, Dick Cheney warned so on February 24, 2007 in Australia. Dick Cheney is right, as oil-funded Semite Arab Wahhabi Islamic terrorists "have ambitions of Islamic Empire" that aim to destroy Christian Civilization and the Western economies by Oil-Price Rise and nuclear attacks on Christian Western Europe, to take revenge of western disintegration of Ottoman Caliphate after First world War. United States should invite India as co-imperial power to rule the Iraqi oil colony, otherwise if Arab Islamic Jihadists tasted victory in Iraq, just as they tasted victory over white Christian Russians in Afghanistan, then Arab Islamic Jihadist would look for new missions, not only in Afghanistan but in capitals across the Middle East, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia and the World civilization as we know would collapse and New Dark Age will descend on the Civilized Christian world. Dick Cheney correctly argued that Free Nations "have a duty" to stand in the way of the insurgents for the sake of their long-term security. America is determined to prevail in Iraq because we understand the consequences of failure". Dick Cheney should realize that without direct military participation by India, the white Christian nations would fail to colonize and impose peace and freedom to Iraqi people, as Arabs can only be governed or ruled by sword and guns. "If USA and NATO coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance of the country, and snowball into a barbarian invasions of civilized West Europeans, who lack the military capability to face the barbarian Muslim invasions. Like the fall of Roman Empire, the West Europeans would capitulate and Islam would rule over Christian Western Europe again in 21st Century, just as Ottomans ruled over Balkans, Serbs and Greeks for centuries. Without the direct military support of USA and India the Europe would come under the military rule of Muslims in 21st Century. Dick Cheney wise said "The (Islamic) violence would likely spread throughout the country, and be difficult to contain. Having tasted victory in Iraq, then Arab Islamic Jihadists would look for new missions. "Many would head for Afghanistan. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more sorrow and discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments." Nuclear-armed Arabian Islamic Jihadist might blow up and destroy liberal Christian civilization, perhaps aided by End of Time Christian believers, who might join Islamic terrorists to fulfill Christian Apocalyptic Teleology, Rupture and Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Christian fundamentalists might inadvertently join Islamic fundamentalists to destroy Western Christian Civilization to impose new Dark Age in Europe.
(2) POLITICS CAUSE OF ISLAM VERSUS CHRISTIANITY CLASH OF CIVILIZATION: More than 30 percent of the White Christian population in Europe and United States firmly believe that violent apocalyptic Clash between White Christian Western civilization and Semite Arab Sunni Islamic Civilization including Iranian Shiite Civilization is inevitable and likely to take place in the early part of 21st Century. Unless Civilized White West does not undertake preemptive military strikes on barbarian uncivilized Arab & Iranian Islam, there is a possibility that White Christianity may cease to exist or lose the war waged by barbarian Islam in the 21st Century. Clash between Islam and west is political, BBC poll finds. Osama bin Laden uses the language of religious conflict, but the BBC poll suggests most people believe politics is the cause of conflict between Islam and the West.
Kalki Gaur, March 3, 2007. URL of Blogs of Kalki Gaur:
ISLAMIC BARBARIAN TERRORISM THREATENS CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
(Anonymous) 2007-03-03 08:20 pm (UTC)(link)Kalki Gaur, March 3, 2007. URL of Blogs of Kalki Gaur:
ISLAM-CHRISTIANITY CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS INEVITABLE- BY KALKI GAUR
(Anonymous) 2007-03-03 08:22 pm (UTC)(link)(1) POLITICS CAUSE OF ISLAM VERSUS CHRISTIANITY CLASH OF CIVILIZATION: More than 30 percent of the White Christian population in Europe and United States firmly believe that violent apocalyptic Clash between White Christian Western civilization and Semite Arab Sunni Islamic Civilization including Iranian Shiite Civilization is inevitable and likely to take place in the early part of 21st Century. Unless Civilized White West does not undertake preemptive military strikes on barbarian uncivilized Arab & Iranian Islam, there is a possibility that White Christianity may cease to exist or lose the war waged by barbarian Islam in the 21st Century. Clash between Islam and west is political, BBC poll finds. Fears of an inevitable "clash of civilizations," Christian West versus Islam are not exaggerated rather highly likely to occur soon. Sizeable population of Christians in the West (more than 50 percent) see positive links between cultures and believe that politics, rather than religion, is the primary cause of international disputes. The politics and oil is the main cause of Islam versus Christianity clash of civilization. The BBC Globescan 2007, public opinion poll of 27 countries for the BBC World Service found the most common view (52%) is that tensions between Muslims and westerners arise from "conflicts about political power and interests" - endorsed by 52% overall. Three in 10 (29%) say such tensions arise mostly from "differences of religion and culture". Either Islamic Oil will make Islamic oil producers oil colonies of the West, or Islamic oil incomes will enable Arab & Iranian Islamic Jihadists to destroy Western civilization in the 21st Century.
(3) FOR OIL AMERICA MUST INVADE ISLAMIC TERRORISM IN IRAN & IRAQ: The national interests of Semite Arabs and Christian West requires that clash of Islam versus Christianity should continue ad infinitum. Unless Christians are able to invade and colonize Islamic oil producers, before oil-funded Arab/Iranian Islamic Jihadist gain access to Pakistani nuclear weapons, the future of the west is doomed. Only common ground that can avert the Islam versus Christianity Apocalypse and Armageddon, is that liberal world empowers Arab women to gain control over political, police and religious power in the Islamic world so that male Arabian/Iranian Jihadis are removed from positions of power, authority and wealth in the Arab world and Islamic world, with the direct help of western military forces and the crusades of democracy in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and other Islamic nations. When asked if "violent conflict is inevitable" between Muslim and Western cultures or whether "it is possible to find common ground" an average of 56% said that common ground can be found between the two cultures - the most common response in 25 countries. On average almost three in 10 (28%) think violent conflict is inevitable. Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, is the only country where this view predominates. At least 48 percent of the population believes that it is impossible to find common ground between Islam and Christianity. Rise of Islam inevitably means the decline of Christianity, and vice versa. Strikingly, the poll reflects a belief that violent conflict is more common among Muslims (35%) than Christians (27%) or others (27%). But 52% of the 5,000 Muslims polled say it is possible to find common ground. Amongst the Middle Eastern countries surveyed, that included majorities in Lebanon (68%) and Egypt (54%) and pluralities in Turkey (49%) and the United Arab Emirates (47%). "Many people round the world, more than 30 percent of the population, clearly accept the idea that Islam and the West are caught in an inevitable clash of civilizations. Very sizeable people in UK believe that Islam-Christianity rapproachement is not possible. In the UK, 77% of those polled believe Islam and the West can find common ground. In Italy the figure is 78%, in France 69% but only 49% in Germany. A majority of Americans (64%) think it is possible to find common ground, though about a third (31%) believe violent conflict is inevitable.
The west has gone soft
(Anonymous) 2007-05-30 08:41 am (UTC)(link)