Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims

Islamization of Europe and Policies to Prevent It, Part 9

 

<<< Back to Part 8




POLICY AREA 12: SECURITY POLICY PART C

 

Parts:

A 12.1 BACKGROUND

A 12.2 CERTAIN GOALS FOR A NEW EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY

B 12.3 MORE ABOUT GOALS AND POLICIES

C 12.4 Certain goals for an European security policy

C 12.5 POLICIES NECESSARY TO REALIZE THE GOALS IN 12.4

D 12.6 THE ENDGAME: NEVER AGAIN

12.4 CERTAIN GOALS FOR AN EUROPEAN SECURITY POLICY


12.4.1 The Great Civil War in Europe

The conflicts between islamists and other followers of traditional islam, which is the real islam, and non-muslims in various countries in Europe, grew during the first decades of the 21st century. The larger the muslim parts of the populations grew in various countries, the more radicalized (in this case: true to its doctrine) they became. No effective policies prevented that parallel muslim societies became strong in different parts of Europe, and forced the governments to make many concessions and give privileges to islamists. The political development in Europe therefore followed the process described in Part 1. The way in which individual governments made themselves free of the restrictions put on them by EU and its administration, was described in sect.12.3 p.14.

After decades of protests and demonstrations, a number of violent acts against political adversaries including murders of political opponents, developed into frequent physical fights between islamists vs police and private militias, and later into firefights. The frequency of terrorist acts against the general non-muslim population increased. In some countries, this phase E (or ph. 5) of the islamisation process of Europe led to armed insurrections (phase F (also called ph. 6)) which grow organically from the demonstrations, conflicts, fights and terrorist acts. After a period, even heavy weapons were used, and the fights between islamists and the military and other forces soon developed into regular civil wars (phase G (also called ph. 7)).

In the countries where this occurred, city after city were partly (or mostly) destroyed in the fighting. During the conflicts, it was discovered that the concentration of muslims to certain larger cities, and there often to parts of the cities, was a blessing. Few wars have been won by mainly occupying cities - by static forces - with few industries and no natural supply of food or other necessary resources. The fighting rapidly became very brutal, and a hundred Fallujahs appeared in Europe. The civil wars in various countries were extremely violent and cruel, and the destruction of the cities severe, when block after block had to be reconquered by the Europeans.

In a few countries where socialists/social democrats and social liberals still held power despite electoral setbacks, the weak reactions of the governments led to the islamists gaining ground. This caused the governments to fall, and conservative/nationalist/classical liberal/libertarian parties took over the political power. However, at that stage these had – like the French government after Dunkirk in 1940 - great difficulties to stabilize the military situation, and it could be done only at a great cost in human lives. The larger parts of these countries were taken over by islamists.

But in other countries, the strategic and tactical situation of the islamists generally deteriorated slowly after some months of fighting, and specially when regular European military forces were mobilized and trained. The shortage of heavy weapons and regular military knowledge of the islamists were only two factors. Their strategic and tactical thinking was often inadequate and couldn't compensate for a number of weaknesses of the muslim forces. The solidarity between most European nations was now strong; help was given by a number of countries with better domestic political situations; and in the end also American troops helped to crush the islamists. The American troops were specially helpful in countries where the islamists had nearly taken over the political power because of the weaknesses and mistakes of earlier governments. The help from muslim countries to the islamists was also often prevented to reach them thanks to the American forces surrounding Europe. An iron ring protected Europe against interventions from the outside.

The centers of resistance were systematically attacked and subdued but it took much longer for the European forces to reconquer cities than for the American Marine Corps to conquer Fallujah in 2004. As a matter of fact, the tempo of the fighting, the treatment of prisoners etc hade many more similarities to the fight for Tammerfors in March-April 1918 (during the Finnish civil war) than to Fallujah in 2004. And the worse the atrocities carried out by the islamists became, and the longer the fighting continued, the more radicalized became the European population. As always, civil wars cause the most intense hatred between the parts of the population which fight each other.

Granada II

Soon after the first outbreak of hostilities between the Home Guard plus army units and the islamists, slogans like “ Granada II”, “Granada, not Palestine” were heard. They became more and more common and were soon incorporated among the goals of many non-muslim political organizations and parties. The people saying e g “Granada, not Palestine” had realized that the European policy regarding PLO and the Palestinian refugees during more than half a century had in reality only led to the preservation of a problem, and not to any kind of solution. No similar destructive so-called peace process could ever be accepted in Europe between muslims and non-muslims.

The European public had at that point of time also understood the islamic policy of “hudna”, a method – a truce for a while - used when islamists are weak, so they can regain their strength and then again fight for the islamisation of Europe. The socialists/social democrats and social liberals could not explain to the public why such a privilege should be given to islamists when these were weak. Most people understood that it was important to crush them when they had become weak, in order to be able to solve the problem for ever. So these slogans could be heard from the lips of an ever increasing number of Europeans. But other – less drastic - solutions were naturally also formulated.

Contributing reasons

A number of factors contributed to the dramatic radicalization of the attitudes of the European electorate. The fact that the dislike by the Europeans of the activities of many muslims had been suppressed by various laws for so long, led to a special intensity in the hatred of the islamists. The contempt and disgust for so many islamist thoughts, actions and rules had hardened during the earlier decades, and suddenly people were allowed to show what they really thought. The large number of terrorist acts during the earlier decades, and the atrocities during the armed insurrections and the civil wars in various countries, had also exhausted the patience of the tolerant European citizens.

The refusal of so many of the so-called mainstream, or moderate, muslims, to accept any kind of responsibility for the muslims following what was said to be another interpretation of islam – political islam/islamism - and the general unwillingness of muslims to help the police and intelligence services to identify and find islamists, had revealed the emptiness of the claim that islam basically is a religion of peace and tolerance. Many moderate muslims just felt unable to act against islamists who, regarding so many issues, in reality have the full weight of the islamic doctrine behind them. To be a moderate muslim was in many cases revealed to be just a cultural habit easily discarded if the faith of the person for any reason became stronger. That many muslims didn´t act as citizens, instead of being passive or active allies of the terrorists, was more damaging to the cause of islam in Europe than anything else.

Most people had during the earlier decades also understood the method to argue that the islamists and many other muslims employ, and how these rules are used in all discussions and dialogues with non-muslims. So e g a favorite method like the role of a victim of the brutal actions by non-muslims was no longer credible to Europeans. People understood that these muslims were instead victims of their own often primitive values and their interpretation of the religious doctrine.

The growing understanding that the fight for islam also – to a considerable extent – was a fight for the goals of an Arab imperialism aiming at the domination of Europe using islamification as a method, also mobilized the Europeans.

12.4.2 Goals for a successful security policy

12.4.2.1 A basic goal

Every European shall understand that every act of islamic terrorism in European countries is a proof of the failure of the immigration and integration policies of the earlier – and current – socialist/socialdemocratic and social liberal governments. The parties of social liberalism och socialdemocracy have clearly shown what their true values are i e that they lack the important values which make it mandatory to protect the European populations against all threats including religious ones. Their refusal also to respond effectively to the islamification efforts by muslim organizations is unforgivable.

These governing parties have – because of their ideology/dislike of the market economy/dogmatism/a special interpretation of multiculturalism - put Europe and the European civilization in an extreme danger. And when the catastrophic consequences started to appear in various countries, the national and local governments tried to suppress the reactions of their European citizens by curtailing their human rights like freedom of expression (disguised as laws against hate speech), freedom of assembly e g the planned large antiislamist demonstration in Brussels 070911. But every suppression of the political rights of Europeans is another proof of the shipwreck of the policies formulated by political establishments in many countries. These politicians tried to conceal that they had not told the truth to their peoples about the many serious consequences of the mass-immigration of muslims. All these repressive measures were only selfserving measures intended to conceal the pending catastrophe, when it appeared more and more likely.

The political parties which are responsible for these policies, have committed such mistakes owing to fundamental errors in their ideologies and approach to politics, that they can never again be trusted with the power to influence the political directions of the nations of Europe. To make the European population understand this basic fact, and how these parties compromised the European security, is now not only a political goal but in reality a true national security goal. The irresponsibility of these parties have put the European continent into an extreme danger threatening the political and cultural, and therefore even the national survival of many countries.

12.4.2.2 To fight against Arab imperialism disguised as a religion

Why the islamist and traditional interpretation of real islam must be fought has been explained earlier. But islam is - besides a religion – also the weapon of an Arab imperialism realizing the goals of Arab political organizations/parties, and also some governments e g Saudi Arabia. It is the basic motivation of many muslims who don't take the religious aspects of islam very seriously. They have understood that their religion is basically a method to conquer other countries, and that the religious aspects are highly useful to reach this goal.

This explains what so many Europeans cannot understand: Why many muslims who individually seem moderate from a religious point-of-view, anyway support the islamists? It is not only the fact that the islamic doctrine regarding so many matters supports the islamists - and not the moderates (and the moderates know that!). These so-called moderates understand the enormous advantages of belonging to a movement that takes over the power in an advanced society. Muslims can then by various methods e g force, special taxation etc exploit the property and riches of the non-muslims. One consequence is then that just moderation in belief doesn't necessarily diminish the desire of muslims living in the west to participate in taking over a country using islam as a method. Non-religious, economic aspects are also important.

This Arab imperialism threatens the national cultures, institutions, and habits of many nations. The newly converted European muslim shall take a new – Arabic – name; according to islam he ought to limit his contacts with his non-muslim family and earlier friends (in the way sects generally demand); Allah talks Arabic, which therefore is the language every muslim should learn for religious reasons. The religious ceremonies are performed in Arabic, and also in Paradise only Arabic is spoken. The muslim shall bow towards Arabia five times per day, and even in death his/her body must be turned towards Arabia (Mecca). (1)

A number of factors lead to the result that Europeans who convert, will sacrifice their own culture for the Arabian one. To earn religious points in order to be able to go to Paradise, a convert must live like an arab, and love Arabia. It has been pointed out that Muhammad's role as an ideal model of muslim behavior is a fundamental cause of Arab cultural imperialism. If the convert shall behave in the correct manner, he/she shall imitate Muhammad. That means that his own culture is abandoned, and the Arabian culture is accepted:

…one must think, feel and act as the Prophet did; one must develop the same tastes and habits as the Prophet had; one must even eat, drink, talk, walk, sleep and look like him in dress and general appearance...

The fundamental principle of Islam is…to perpetuate itself through a permanent strife based on the distinction of…(the Muslim) and… (the non-Muslim)…. it becomes the duty of all converts to Islam that they... subordinate all their national institutions to those of Arabia, adopt Islamic law, learn Arabic and Arab manners; love Mecca and Arabs, to acknowledge Muhammad as the Model of Behavior because being an Arab he loved and enforced everything that was Arabian. Still worse, they must hate their own culture and motherland to such an extent that it becomes Dar-ul-Harb, i.e. a living battlefield. In practice it means that they must set up an opposite camp in their own motherland and fight their own countrymen until they all surrender … …by embracing Islam. It is then and only then that the country becomes Dar-ul-Islam i.e. the Land of Peace; otherwise it remains a battlefield (Dar-ul-Harb) ….These non-Arab Muslims develop a special sense of contempt for their own cultures and motherlands under the pretence of believing in the Muslim nationhood… (2),

When all aspects are added up, the Arab imperialistic character of the religion is overwhelming. Arabian culture and habits slowly strangle the local cultures in the countries, where Arab immigrants have become numerous or islam strong.

And what is then the final, ideal political result of a global islamic victory (a result that shall then last for all the future of mankind) ? Well, in the future perfect islamic society and the perfect muslim world-state which all muslims shall work for, one kaliph - a dictator – governs over the world. Democracy is eliminated. The kaliph shall be an arab, and ideally even come from a certain Arab tribe in Saudi Arabia.

This is the worst kind of political and cultural imperialism. To withstand this type of invasion disguised as a global religion, is a vital condition for the survival of Europe.


12.4.2.3 Important goals for a security policy

Some general security goals of the European nations follow from the basic foreign policy goals expressed in sect. 12.2. We will not treat the more specific and detailed security goals but will limit the discussion here to the basic – but in the long run most important - goals which must form the backbone of a security policy regarding a Europe where human rights are respected.

The violations of the human rights of individuals – muslims or non-muslims - caused by the real, traditional interpretation of islam, also have as a purpose to undermine the western society, and pave the way for an islamic society. These crimes can therefore be viewed as a part of the warfare against the non-muslim society and similar in their longterm a i m to terrorist attacks and military resistance. A resolute defense of freedom and the human rights of every resident – muslim or non-muslim - is therefore necessary, and seen as part of a broadly defined security policy.

The rules and policies against: (a) violations (caused by the religion) of the human rights of family members, (b) non-physical religious hate crimes (see Policy Area 4), (c) crimes against integration (Policy Area 6), or (d) against sexual equality in order to uphold sexual apartheid (Policy Area 3), belong to the soft part of a broad security policy (SP Part I). Physical attacks against property or people caused by religious considerations, terrorist acts, and military insurrections belong to activities which form the hard part of the security policy (SP Part II).

For example, religiously based (or accepted) crimes against muslims – often family members – allow the islamists to counter integration attempts and keep a parallel society (muslims following a muslim agenda and sharia rules, and not western law) intact and therefore as a resource, or weapon, to be used against the secular state. The effects of e g honour killings are – besides upholding a primitive and at the same time childish honour concept ― to preserve the power of men over women and by that an important part of the profound collectivism of the Islamic society with few individual rights. Honour murders are also political statements. There are good reasons to see such acts as part of the islamisation efforts of muslims in Europe, and politically different in kind but not in aim, to terrorism and insurrections.

An unconditional defense of human rights in all nations of Europe is therefore part of a broad security policy. A proactive zero-tolerance policy regarding all violations of human rights in European countries and with the main attention directed to such violations by muslims, shall be realized by the full force of the state. It constitutes part I of the security policy (also see 12.2 p.3A). Religious hate crimes (see Policy Area 4), crimes against integration (see Policy Area 6: sect.2) and also crimes aiming at upholding sexual apartheid according to muslim rules (see Part 2: sect 4.3), shall be specially observed.

The muslim clergy is vital to the islamist movement. Khomeini was right when he said that without the support of a committed clergy, the islamic revolution will weaken, or – in the long run - even disappear. The efforts of mullahs are important in Europe in order to build parallel societies and resist integration. All people who fulfill priestly or supporting functions in muslim mosques in Europe must therefore be given attention and have their behaviour controlled.

All religious hate crimes by mullahs must be observed and later punished. A number of religious hate crimes were discussed in Part 4 (Policy Area 4). The measures proposed in 12.3 p.10-11 regarding the muslim clergy are important. However, religious hate crimes against human rights are committed by many people, and are the backbone of the efforts to counteract integration and keep parallel societies functioning in Europe. The earlier stated goal is also a security one: “No parallel societies shall be allowed in any European country” (see 12.2 p.2.4). Without such societies, islamism will be drastically weakened. Elimination of all religious hate crimes against human rights in Europe is a specially important part of the proactive zero-tolerance policy mentioned above.

Some goals concerning the hard part of the security policy (SP Part II) are:

1. Elimination of all major causes of islamism, terrorist acts and armed insurrections in Europe. Arguments saying that terrorism is caused by factors like the Western policy regarding Israel, are generally untrue. It has been pointed out that it is not because of what we do, but because of whom we are, that western democracies and citizens are hated by muslims.

A number of extremely important aspects must then be treated and decided upon. The issue of immigration naturally has major weight. Immigration cannot any longer be allowed to create national security risks in Europe. Considerable changes in today´s immigration policies are necessary (see 12.2 p.9 and 12.3 p.10), and these will be treated in Policy Area 8.

If one speaks about major causes, a basic issue regards the motivation of islamists. To weaken that motivation is to take away the fuel from islamists, and in reality nothing is more important from a security point-of-view than that. It is then of interest to the European nations that the main psychological pillars of islamism, which drive the terrorists to act, are – if not destroyed - at least weakened. The main motivational factors shall therefore be identified, and – if possible – their power eliminated.

This demands that the state is allowed to critizise various aspects of a religion e g that suicide bombers will be rewarded by going to the Paradise. The state can do that as long as the reason is not to support any specific religion but that an interpretation of a specific religion causes numerous crimes against human rights and political freedom. A policy regarding the core elements of the islamist faith which are of importance for the violent behaviour of islamists, is formulated and carried out.

Let´s just take an example of another general motivational factor. A powerful reason for many men to support islamism is that this ideology fights for k e e p i n g w o m e n o p p r e s s e d in order to function as servants to men. Without women to dominate and kept as servants and second class citizens, the reason and motivation even to be a muslim is much weaker. Women who fulfill the subservient role chosen for them according to the gender apartheid rules, make men´s life infinitely easier. What this role means is e g that a man can get a wife without having to show any personal qualities impressing the woman. Just by fulfilling something similar to a business transaction, he will have a subservient and docile servant who even gives him sexual gratification, and in any way he wants because she has no right to object. And if the male chooses not to help the wife with anything at home, that is also correct aso.

The male´s whole personal life is influenced by these gender apartheid rules which many (most ?) muslim men approve of. To preserve gender apartheid is then an extremely important motivational factor for followers of islamists, and specially young men. Even if they have horrible personalities without any good qualities, they can still get married to an obedient female servant. Many male muslims know that their whole life style is threatened by the western laws and therefore they want to stop the process of female emancipation. As long as that seems possible, some will support islamists.

However, if it doesn´t seem possible to prevent female emancipation any longer, their attitude and support may well change because this stand may then cost too much. Female emancipation also changes women from servants and second-class persons to independent individuals who can make individual choices – and therefore perhaps even decide to fight against islamists (or at least not support them). It is for many reasons a national security goal to make muslim women equal to men in all practical aspects. The proactive zero-tolerance policy regarding e g all crimes against integration and religious hate crimes supporting gender apartheid, is necessary also from this point-of-view. Freer and more independent women will be an important factor in eliminating parallel societies, and diminishing the power basis of the islamists. In this respect, soft policy is hard policy.

2. Those parts of the islamic doctrine which are contrary to UDHR, and to the constitution of the specific country and its bill of rights, are a threat to a peaceful society. They shall be declared unlawful and therefore not relevant, and shall not be allowed to be taught or used in any religious messages, sermons, and other religious activities etc. The political consequences of the fact that islam is a religion very different from all other important religions, and that many of its theses cannot be respected, shall be drawn. The issue if traditional islam is a sect must be thoroughly examined.

3. The intelligence-, police- and military capacity (the national protection forces) where a volunteer Home Guard will play a key role (see 12.4.3), will be heavily expanded.

4. An intense cooperation between nations regarding security and military matters using mechanisms that – in all probability - are not under the control of EU (see 12.2 p.8 and 12.3 p.13) is necessary. Governments with similar opinions cooperate continously and realize a forceful anti-islamist security and military agenda in Europe. The legal changes necessary for the future conflict were described in sect 12.3 p.16.

5. Satisfactory intelligence regarding all organizations where islamists may be active must be collected by the state, and by all available means. Infiltration of such organizations shall be carried out wherever it is possible and cost-effective ( also see 12.3 p.15).

6. Strong and continous efforts to weaken the ability of all organizations, influenced by islamists, to support and/or carry out acts of terrorism, or take part in military insurrections. Using the traditional enmity between certain islamic groups/nationalities may be one possible method.

7. No European nation shall agree to that “one square centimeter of European soil shall be allowed to be under the sovereignty of political Islam….. there shall be no “no-go” areas in Europe” (see12.2 p 2.3). This regards dominance by non-elected organizations.

Even if a government of islamists was elected, it would soon break the law by violating the constitutional rights of individuals, and would then in practice be illegal. But such parties with a religious agenda that goes against the UDHR or the constitution of the country, shall not be allowed to take part in elections (see Policy Area 4).

8. Another goal for the European nations is to support - by all necessary resources - any European country threatened and attacked by islamists, according to the principle “One for all, all for one” (see 12.2 p. 2.2).

9. One principle guiding the security or military response to e g armed insurrections is that a proportionate response is an extremely faulty and dangerous principle. It just allows the adversary to survive, and keeps the problem alive. The best principle is often owerwhelming force if such a response can be arranged. Just the speed that this approach causes, saves many lives in itself.

Another principle is that the lives of the European soldiers and citizens which support the government, shall be protected maximally. That principle has definite consequences for the rules of engagement, and for tactical military decisions.

10. All other, often more detailed and technical, security goals.

12.4.3 The National Protection Forces

The period of reduced national resources committed to defense or national security has now ended. Owing to the betrayal by the socialist/socialdemocratic and social liberal governments of the security of the European nations, these must now commit vastly increased resources for intelligence, internal security and national defense. Without that betrayal, many relevant grants could still be held rather low. But e g a larger court system, a considerable larger prison capacity, a larger police force, increased budgets for internal security, increased resources aimed at suppressing terrorist acts, a larger army a s o is a considerable drain on national resources (besides all types of support payments and social welfare costs for such immigrants who are a menace). These expenses would have been unnecessary with a sensible immigration/integration policy.

Increased resources are now necessary for:

1. Intelligence/security organizations

2. The local and national police forces

3. A drastically expanded Home Guard force

4. The army

One of more nations also ought to build a European Protection Force (see below).


The local Home Guard

A volunteer local/regional Home Guard shall now form a much larger part of the total National Protection Forces. This expanded Home Guard shall be able to effectively control the local communities - or even regions – where it is located, against any armed activities of islamists, and if necessary suppress any rebellion by force. Budgetwise, it means a dramatically increased force, increased compensation for officers and the soldiers; more and better training; better and heavier equipment, personal protection vests and equipment to fight in darkness etc. Because of their increased responsibilities, a permanent officer corps with better and longer education, and a larger Home Guard administration, is necessary.

The Home Guard shall permanently be ready to act against all kinds of threats. When the threats are eliminated, the soldiers go back home. Such units will make private anti-islamist militias much less probable. Private militias will otherwise form spontaneously when the conflicts in the society and the terrorist attacks increase.

The National Home Guard

A special part of the Home Guard shall be equipped with heavy weapons and have a mobile capacity. These units shall be able to operate over the whole country and support those local Home Guard forces which meet special problems. Together with the local Home Guard, they shall be able to reconquer whole communities which have been taken over by islamist forces. These heavy units are given special training. Also these soldiers are all volunteers and they function as soldiers a certain number of hours per month. When a crisis has occurred, they have the right to leave their jobs, become full-time soldiers and are paid for that dangerous work to protect the nation.

This part of the Home Guard is called the National Home Guard (NHG) in contrast to the ordinary Home Guard which has local or regional duties.

The national army

At a suitable point-of-time during the islamisation process in a country, conscription shall be introduced, if it has earlier been eliminated. Military training of young people leaving school will then start again. Refresher training of earlier trained persons shall also be common again. When the fighting has started, a selective mobilization of men under 50 and who are not engaged in the Home Guard, is carried out.

The Home Guard is an all volunteer force, which train together during brief periods but during a long period of time, and have an extraordinary local knowledge. The units can be mobilized in sometimes less than a day, and they step down immediately the danger is over. The infantry in the army has distinct weaknesses in these respects but has other large advantages e g longer continuous training, regular support of heavier weapons (armour, artillery etc) and training in large units together with other arms including the Air Force. The longer a civil war will last, the more important will the conventional army become.

A European Protection Force

One or two European nations shall organize a European Protection Force (EPF) consisting of volunteers from any nation in the world. The enlisted men in EPF will consist of trained soldiers, or just untrained volunteers interested in becoming soldiers and protecting freedom and democracy in Europe from internal threats. They shall be paid a low salary, and the units shall be under a very strict discipline. They shall be able to fight anywhere in Europe. The aim is to create an elite force with weapons that allow it to reconquer and dominate any community or region in Europe, which is under attack, or has been conquered, by islamists. Because of their extremely high motivation, background and training, these professional soldiers can be exposed to any hardships and dangers in their fight to preserve freedom in Europe. They shall be able to form the vanguard in every fight against islamists, as long as regular national army units are not available.

Such units can be created just for the need of one country but it is desirable and advantageous from the viewpoint of economies-of-scale if a larger force is trained in one place but – if needed – can work everywhere in Europe. For that reason, the nation that creates this force shall let other nations contribute to the financing of it, and some may be willing to do just that just as a national insurance premium. At the request of a specific government, (part of) the force is lent out to that country. Its goal is then to help that government to prevent or suppress any islamist uprisings there, and to assist in tracking down and apprehending all islamists in a region. While these units then are under the command of the military representatives for the government of the specific country, they will fight as separate units, and under their own officers.

This capacity will be of considerable help to any government which tries to fulfill the goals of not allowing even one square centimeter of European soil to be under the sovereignty of political islam, or assisting in eliminating armed rebellions etc caused by e g the refusal of the islamists to dissolve various parts of a parallel society in a country.

________________________

(1) http://www.islam-watch.org/AnwarSheikh/Islam-Arab-Imperialism7.htm 

(2) http://www.islam-watch.org/AnwarSheikh/Islam-Arab-Imperialism7.htm 

>>> Continued to Part 10


If you like this essay: Stumble it   Stumble Upon Toolbar digg it reddit

Name:     closed
Comment:

Comments Notes: Make comments preferably in "single" paragraph, since our system cannot separate paragraphs.


vbv
Tuesday August 21, 2007
03:16:23 -0700

The whiteman reaps what he has sown.In the colonial era i.e. prior to the 1950s they found common cause with the muslims, as co-monotheist in religion , disdaining others as polytheists (Hinduism) or atheists (Budhism/Jainism), sympathised with them, instigated and incited them for a seperate muslim nation from India. They gleefully stoked the fires and dismembered this country. Well ,polytheists are also reasonable and secular people didn't go too well with their narrow mindsets. The europeans generally disparaged Indian history as 'no history' and our culture as backward. The arrogance of power blinded them and consistently supported ,until recently, the so-called Kashmir 'cause' in favour of Pakistan (of course till they realised that Pakistan was deeply involved in exporting islamic fundamentalism/terrorism to the West). Islamic nations by nature of their creed are backstabbers and cut-throats, they will have no compunction to bite the hands that feed them (the case of Afghan mujahids who fought the USSR occupation, along with the muslims of other countries ,including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, etc. the list goes on). Both the West and the islamic countries are equally amoral and culpable for the present world scenario. Opposition to islamic fundamentalism, fanaticism and terrorism can come effectively only from countries such as Russia, China, Japan India (if our secular politicians become truly secular), Thailand, Nepal, Vietnam, Korea and maybe Australia. I wont be surprised that one day Europe and USA become a colony of Saudi Arabia, carrying the jihad to the rest of the world and bring destruction to the entire humanity, perhaps the prospect of full-scale nuclear war is not farfetched with a rabid creed called islam flourishing in the near future! Of course there is a brighter side to it also, Darwin's evolution being a scientific fact, new species would evolve, perhaps sans religion!


mel tal
Friday February 27, 2009
04:24:42 -0500

the threat and danger of islam, radical or not, is clear from this article. the main problem, i think, is not that people are unaware of the horrors of islam but they have no real motivation in doing something about the fight against the dictatorships and fascism islam creates, always with the appearance of being victimized and weak, especially by jews. in history the jews have been scapegoated always because of their individualitic and freedom loving character as well as their intelligence as a people. but the article is an excellent start and should be promoted more throughout the world. i think at the essay should especially reach the highest political echelons who have not been up to now poisoned by the money and propaganda of the arabs and islamists.


 
Hit Counter