During one of the Iraq wars the media quoted a Muslim religious leader who declared "Muslims don't kill other Muslims". That sounds fairly clear - except when compared to reality and history - that's as clear as mud.
Muslims murder other Muslims and have been doing so since Mohammad died and the split between Sunnis and Shiites came into existence. Why? Because the Koran demands faithful Muslims must kill heretics. Guess what? Each of these groups feels they're the only faithful Muslims and all others are heretics. And it gets worse.
Muslim societies are not modern civilized societies as we understand modern and civilized. Just because they have modern transportation, communications and arms, doesn't make them civilized. If anything, it makes them less civilized since they can now easily export their extremism all around the world. These are medieval tribal societies with all the unbridled violent passions and mentality of that age completely intact today. To them - no moral imperatives or moral foundations have changed.
It appears "Iraq's Sunnis seem to be fed up with the presence of Iranian-backed Shiite militias" and people wonder how much control Iran has over these militias. My feeling is the only influence these sponsor states have is minimal. As long as they keep funding them, which is now much easier since Obama gave these maniacs hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, they have some control, but I think it's minimal. These radical groups are legion, and like the Hydra, when you cut off one head, two more grow in its place, and each has its own power structure and vision of what Islam means.
Hamas and Fatah are now and have been in competition for control of Palestinian politics forever, and no matter what's in the media - that's not going to change. Unlike Western diplomats and politicians, these guys know the real rules of the game. They want the money and power and will not honor any agreement that's going to diminish either for their group.
Among others - Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Egypt are also involved in this mess, and this outside interference is a continuing factor in the Middle East, not just among so-called Palestinians, but in every Muslim controlled land.
There's a constant balancing of power among the players, and for one reason, the relative "stability" of the Middle East and Muslim controlled lands was predicated on the power of tyrants. For hundreds of years the Middle East and North Africa was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. Turks who practised a form of Islam antithetical to both Shiites and Sunnis. How did they keep them in control? They killed any who started to have enough influence to unbalance the power structure. The only thing Muslims understand is power and the willingness to use it.
Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran, which was the real beginning of this mess. The Shah may not have been a model of civil rights, but the people who replaced him have left their nation devastated economically and socially. Make no mistake about this. Life under the Shah was far better on the worst day than the best day under the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors.
Both the Bush's failed to understand (possibly deliberately) the real politics of Iran and Iraq, and truthfully, I do believe they were both co-opted by some kind of unknown involvement with Saudi Arabia. I think there's far more to that story than we may ever know.
When Saddam Hussein was defeated it left a major hole in the power structure of Iraq, and all these factions he kept under control erupted in violence to try and fill that vacuum.
Obama made a decision that helped topple Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak based on the idea there was an "Arab Spring" hatching all over the Muslim world that was going to lead to the creation of Democratic governments in these nations. At least that was the public position he took.
Under that same failed thinking Obama helped overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya which led to an explosion of tribal and extremist violence. This led to a planned and coordinated attack against American government property and facilities in Benghazi by members of the Islamic militant group known as Ansar al-Sharia, which cost the lives of Americans including the Ambassador. All of which could have been prevented if Hillary Clinton had provided the extra security the ambassador requested and the military support after the attack started. The Obama administration ignored both trying to save face for their political decision to overthrow Gaddafi.
Did Obama understand what he was unleashing on the world? Is it possible a man who was raised as a Muslim didn't understand what was really happening?
My view is that Obama was a true Manchurian Candidate, and it's my belief he deliberately set things into motion that were detrimental to America. Why? The goal of the left is now and has always been a worldwide socialist government. Today they're working to establish a worldwide system of governance under the auspices of the most corrupt and incompetent organization the world has ever known. The United Nations!
What could justify such a takeover more than anarchy the world over? Everything Obama did while in office laid the groundwork for that kind of anarchy. But make no mistake about this. The Bush's were just as guilty. Since WWII, the Bush's, and the Republican elite, are now and have always been Globalists, and much of what they did supported the idea of a global system of governance. An excellent example of that was the position of G. W. Bush and Condolezza Rice on the Law of the Sea Treaty that gave complete control of the world's oceans, along with all that's in it or under it, to the United Nations. They supported it!
The only President since WWII who hasn't been a Globalist was Reagan, and the only thing standing between a socialist controlled U.N. and global domination is the United States economy and the U.S. Constitution. As for Donald Trump - what Trump ends up being remains to be seen.
As for my solution to this mess, since the solution used by the Ottoman Empire is out of the question that leaves what I believe is the only solution. Keep them isolated, keep them poor, keep them disarmed as much as possible and keep them over there. Stay out of those countries militarily and stop thinking if we give them Democracy they'll be just like us. The foundational social paradigm for those nations is based on the Koran, and that's a burden and curse we can't fix. The minute they get to vote for their leaders they just vote in a different tyrant. As time has shown, they invariably choose a radical Islamist tyrant.
As for Syria? I left this out because that's a mess beyond definition, and I think it's now beyond any fix. The country is totally devastated, the people have been destroyed, and there's nothing there that's worth fighting for. What will happen? Nothing good as long as these groups are funded by outside forces. Syria no longer exists. It's now nothing more than a geographical designation.
There's a constant balancing of power among the players, and for one reason, the relative "stability" of the Middle East and Muslim controlled lands was predicated on the power of tyrants. For hundreds of years the Middle East and North Africa was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. Turks who practised a form of Islam antithetical to both Shiites and Sunnis. How did they keep them in control? They killed any who started to have enough influence to unbalance the power structure. The only thing Muslims understand is power and the willingness to use it.
Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran, which was the real beginning of this mess. The Shah may not have been a model of civil rights, but the people who replaced him have left their nation devastated economically and socially. Make no mistake about this. Life under the Shah was far better on the worst day than the best day under the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors.
Both the Bush's failed to understand (possibly deliberately) the real politics of Iran and Iraq, and truthfully, I do believe they were both co-opted by some kind of unknown involvement with Saudi Arabia. I think there's far more to that story than we may ever know.
When Saddam Hussein was defeated it left a major hole in the power structure of Iraq, and all these factions he kept under control erupted in violence to try and fill that vacuum.
Obama made a decision that helped topple Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak based on the idea there was an "Arab Spring" hatching all over the Muslim world that was going to lead to the creation of Democratic governments in these nations. At least that was the public position he took.
Under that same failed thinking Obama helped overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya which led to an explosion of tribal and extremist violence. This led to a planned and coordinated attack against American government property and facilities in Benghazi by members of the Islamic militant group known as Ansar al-Sharia, which cost the lives of Americans including the Ambassador. All of which could have been prevented if Hillary Clinton had provided the extra security the ambassador requested and the military support after the attack started. The Obama administration ignored both trying to save face for their political decision to overthrow Gaddafi.
Did Obama understand what he was unleashing on the world? Is it possible a man who was raised as a Muslim didn't understand what was really happening?
My view is that Obama was a true Manchurian Candidate, and it's my belief he deliberately set things into motion that were detrimental to America. Why? The goal of the left is now and has always been a worldwide socialist government. Today they're working to establish a worldwide system of governance under the auspices of the most corrupt and incompetent organization the world has ever known. The United Nations!
What could justify such a takeover more than anarchy the world over? Everything Obama did while in office laid the groundwork for that kind of anarchy. But make no mistake about this. The Bush's were just as guilty. Since WWII, the Bush's, and the Republican elite, are now and have always been Globalists, and much of what they did supported the idea of a global system of governance. An excellent example of that was the position of G. W. Bush and Condolezza Rice on the Law of the Sea Treaty that gave complete control of the world's oceans, along with all that's in it or under it, to the United Nations. They supported it!
The only President since WWII who hasn't been a Globalist was Reagan, and the only thing standing between a socialist controlled U.N. and global domination is the United States economy and the U.S. Constitution. As for Donald Trump - what Trump ends up being remains to be seen.
As for my solution to this mess, since the solution used by the Ottoman Empire is out of the question that leaves what I believe is the only solution. Keep them isolated, keep them poor, keep them disarmed as much as possible and keep them over there. Stay out of those countries militarily and stop thinking if we give them Democracy they'll be just like us. The foundational social paradigm for those nations is based on the Koran, and that's a burden and curse we can't fix. The minute they get to vote for their leaders they just vote in a different tyrant. As time has shown, they invariably choose a radical Islamist tyrant.
As for Syria? I left this out because that's a mess beyond definition, and I think it's now beyond any fix. The country is totally devastated, the people have been destroyed, and there's nothing there that's worth fighting for. What will happen? Nothing good as long as these groups are funded by outside forces. Syria no longer exists. It's now nothing more than a geographical designation.
Rich,
ReplyDeleteVery insightful. As long as the Islamic world maintains a 7th century tribal culture based on the writings of a madman, it will never be civilized.
The hate is over 1400 years old. The Qur'an calls for killing infidels and takfirs, Mohammad called for killing infidels and takfirs, Mohammad killed infidels and takfirs - now his followers are killing infidels and takfirs. Mohammad is after all the perfect example to follow. Are Christians killing by following the examples of Christ? Are Buddhist killing by following the example of Buddha? The Hindus, Shintos, Amish, etc.? No only the violent Islamists. Muslims are the foremost victims of Mohammad's Islam. It's their religion. It's theirs to fix.
Why involve infidels in a problem that is clearly Islamic? The Muslims should quit blaming the world and get their own religion in order. If their religion can fit into the world in a civilized manner then they are welcomed in all countries, but don't expect the world to adjust to a 7th century tribal mindset.
As to a solution, isolating the Islamic world would be nice, but as you say they only respect absolute power and as such a demonstration would be necessary to encourage them to self-isolate. A MOAB demo publically broadcast with the warning that if another Islamic terrorist attack occurs in the West then the next MOAB will be dropped on Medina. If that doesn't make the point and another attack occurs then Mecca is the next target. You have to get their total attention otherwise they will not listen. Brutal, yes. Otherwise it's a death of a thousand cuts. As you know they respect the man on the strong horse. I really don't give a rat's butt if they like us...just go away and leave us alone.