Saudi Arabia is now moving toward a form of 'moderate' islam. So says their new leader and who could not rejoice at such news, if it were true.
But moving towards a moderate islam confirms that there is also an immoderate islam, and also to admit that the Saudis have previously been followers of that radical ideology. Nothing new here, but I guess an admission of truth is better than continued denial.
The problem is that page one of the International Liars Manual, states that a half truth is always more convincing than a complete lie, so what are we to make of these latest claims?
A skeptic (count me in), would point to the failure of Saudi aggression in Yemen, including their support for Al Qaeda and miserable results of their arming, aiding and financing terrorism in Syria, Iraq and almost everywhere that islamic terrorism exists. Could these disasters have something to do with the new apparent humanity of the Saudi leadership?
That Russia and Iran have emerged stronger from this Saudi destructiveness might also have something to do with the Arabian change of direction, and although we may need to wait a while longer for proof, we should not allow optimism to overrule caution, because the Saudis have a word for telling non-Muslims what they want to hear about the moderateness of their religion.
The American public, especially under Trump, are unlikely to give Saudi Arabia the sort of support they demand, while they continue with their murderous, misogynistic and dehumanizing ways, so is this the real motivation for embracing such wonderful freedoms as letting women drive?
As with the abolition of slavery in 1962 when US pressure forced an earlier flirtation with moderation, we should not underestimate the political agility of Saudi rulers, nor should we assume that one minuscule movement towards humane behaviour indicates anything more than a single, small step in the right direction.
Monday, 27 November 2017
Monday, 13 November 2017
US: Speaking against hate
For anyone concerned with combating Jihad terrorism, there are some interesting developments in USA.
I write now about the actual fight for hearts and minds of the good people on this planet who oppose wanton murder, enslavement and oppression, and not the mendacious platitudes of the 'War on Terror' espoused by presidents Bush and Obama.
Why this war of ideas is being fought here in the West, and not in those countries that fund and support the war against us, is still quite mysterious. And make no mistake, despite Bush's bluster, this is a war that was declared against us long before 9/11 and the resulting military adventures.
One of the leading figures in this, the real war on terror, is Robert Spencer, author and Director of Jihad Watch, and he combines those efforts with speaking engagements around the world, where he tries to educate and inform those who will listen, about the dangers we all face.
On 14th November he is scheduled to address the College Republicans at Stanford University where one might assume he will be met by young and inquiring minds, all of whom have a vested interest in finding out about the growing threat to what is, after all, their very own future. But the event has been met with stout resistance, such that it appears opposing Islamic terrorism, is itself a crime.
Given the high repute of Stanford, we could still hope for some coherent and well reasoned objections rather than the usual personal insults that trying to save humanity usually engenders, and one piece that caught my eye, was from a young Jewish student who equated counter terrorism with antisemitism; an interesting juxtaposition, but she had reasons which deserve looking into.
She cites a seminar where they discuss the notion that 'hatred accumulates', saying that:-
"Nazism was only a thinkable outcome because hateful ideologies," ...[I'm excluding a small reference here which is probably libelous]... "gained widespread acceptance and intensity throughout the history of the Western world."
While this is a viable conclusion - that small hatreds become reinforced and grow over time - she appears to take another step, and suggest that hatred for one group or race, can quickly turn against another, and again, this is a valid conclusion but it supposes that the person or group committing this nastiness was already looking for something to hate, so that for them, today's Muslim is simply tomorrow's Jew:-
"Any platform for Islamophobia is well-equipped to double as a platform for anti-Semitism."
Unfortunately, the title of Spencer's latest book 'Confessions of an Islamophobe' does give some leeway for her to use the islamophobic smear, even if the book's purpose is to dissect and debunk the term, but hey, that's showbiz.
In any case, her use of that term here is merely to signify Muslim hatred; but when did opposition to (or even hatred of) Jihad terror, become hatred of Muslims, or is she saying that all Muslims are engaged in, or support, Jihad terror?
The other problem with her theory is this:-
If it's OK to hate people who one perceives as themselves being hateful, doesn't that mean one has started down the slippery slope of 'hatred accumulation', and that same one is subsequently just waiting to have their hatred re-directed towards some poor and unsuspecting innocent?
In truth, as a regular reader and commenter on Jihad Watch, I can testify that Robert Spencer is probably the least hateful person I have encountered online, and given the horrendous subject matter that he deals with on a daily basis, that is little short of astounding.
I write now about the actual fight for hearts and minds of the good people on this planet who oppose wanton murder, enslavement and oppression, and not the mendacious platitudes of the 'War on Terror' espoused by presidents Bush and Obama.
Why this war of ideas is being fought here in the West, and not in those countries that fund and support the war against us, is still quite mysterious. And make no mistake, despite Bush's bluster, this is a war that was declared against us long before 9/11 and the resulting military adventures.
One of the leading figures in this, the real war on terror, is Robert Spencer, author and Director of Jihad Watch, and he combines those efforts with speaking engagements around the world, where he tries to educate and inform those who will listen, about the dangers we all face.
On 14th November he is scheduled to address the College Republicans at Stanford University where one might assume he will be met by young and inquiring minds, all of whom have a vested interest in finding out about the growing threat to what is, after all, their very own future. But the event has been met with stout resistance, such that it appears opposing Islamic terrorism, is itself a crime.
Given the high repute of Stanford, we could still hope for some coherent and well reasoned objections rather than the usual personal insults that trying to save humanity usually engenders, and one piece that caught my eye, was from a young Jewish student who equated counter terrorism with antisemitism; an interesting juxtaposition, but she had reasons which deserve looking into.
She cites a seminar where they discuss the notion that 'hatred accumulates', saying that:-
"Nazism was only a thinkable outcome because hateful ideologies," ...[I'm excluding a small reference here which is probably libelous]... "gained widespread acceptance and intensity throughout the history of the Western world."
While this is a viable conclusion - that small hatreds become reinforced and grow over time - she appears to take another step, and suggest that hatred for one group or race, can quickly turn against another, and again, this is a valid conclusion but it supposes that the person or group committing this nastiness was already looking for something to hate, so that for them, today's Muslim is simply tomorrow's Jew:-
"Any platform for Islamophobia is well-equipped to double as a platform for anti-Semitism."
Unfortunately, the title of Spencer's latest book 'Confessions of an Islamophobe' does give some leeway for her to use the islamophobic smear, even if the book's purpose is to dissect and debunk the term, but hey, that's showbiz.
In any case, her use of that term here is merely to signify Muslim hatred; but when did opposition to (or even hatred of) Jihad terror, become hatred of Muslims, or is she saying that all Muslims are engaged in, or support, Jihad terror?
The other problem with her theory is this:-
If it's OK to hate people who one perceives as themselves being hateful, doesn't that mean one has started down the slippery slope of 'hatred accumulation', and that same one is subsequently just waiting to have their hatred re-directed towards some poor and unsuspecting innocent?
In truth, as a regular reader and commenter on Jihad Watch, I can testify that Robert Spencer is probably the least hateful person I have encountered online, and given the horrendous subject matter that he deals with on a daily basis, that is little short of astounding.
Tuesday, 7 November 2017
Russia: 100 years later
The October Revolution happened in November, and followed the February Revolution...confused?
Well don't worry, because what really matters is that an ideological and popular uprising soon turned to bloody barbarism, and that always seems to be the pattern.
From the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, to the Arab Spring's shift into Winter, euphoria turns to dread, as the vacuum caused when existing political and legal structures fail, is quickly filled by those who were kept in check by those very same forces of law and order.
What does this mean to the West today?
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, which was seeded in those dark days of 1917, we may feel confident that we can withstand any ideological threat, either from the far Left or from the near East, but it may not be the ideology that we should fear, because the real threat comes, not from violent ideologies, but from the void left by the accompanying collapse of Law and Order.
So, when crimes go unpunished while reporting criminality is itself a crime, revolution is probably already upon us.
Well don't worry, because what really matters is that an ideological and popular uprising soon turned to bloody barbarism, and that always seems to be the pattern.
From the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, to the Arab Spring's shift into Winter, euphoria turns to dread, as the vacuum caused when existing political and legal structures fail, is quickly filled by those who were kept in check by those very same forces of law and order.
What does this mean to the West today?
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, which was seeded in those dark days of 1917, we may feel confident that we can withstand any ideological threat, either from the far Left or from the near East, but it may not be the ideology that we should fear, because the real threat comes, not from violent ideologies, but from the void left by the accompanying collapse of Law and Order.
So, when crimes go unpunished while reporting criminality is itself a crime, revolution is probably already upon us.
Thursday, 2 November 2017
US: A day to remember
Halloween 2017, eight people murdered and 11 injured by an islamic terrorist proving what diversity can mean for the unwary.
Legend has it, that on the same day, 500 years earlier, Martin Luther published his thesis on the ails and ills of the Roman Catholic Church. His work was soon reprinted and distributed to begin what we now call the Protestant Reformation.
Whatever we think of the effects of that publication and the subsequent upheaval it initiated, there is no dispute that the words and ideas expressed resulted in a seismic shift in Christian thinking and history.
Back to the Manhattan murderer:-
He departs his killing machine, brandishing 'weapons' designed, not to kill more people, but to provoke his demise by a policeman's bullet, and entry to whatever his religion calls an afterlife; so convinced is he of martyrdom, that he shouts aloud that his god is greater [than that of those he has just slain] and waits to be shot dead. This doesn't happen, but his commitment to jihad remains.
And what does his community say? Are they appalled and dismayed by his actions, or are they committed to preserving their treasured status of victimhood?
So a question arises. Why does such a heinous crime, in the name of a 'religion of peace', not produce an outcry from his coreligionists?
If one document could so fundamentally change Christianity, how can so many acts of barbarism (more than 30,000 since 9/11), not change islam? And think about 9/11, almost 3000 killed and over 6000 injured, just a few blocks from this latest attack. Where was islam's introspection and debate following that earlier rendition of allahu akbar?
Surely, no true Religion of Peace could possibly continue unashamed and unabashed in the face of such brutality, without at least examining the possibility that so many koranic verses extolling the virtues of murder and mutilation might be having an effect on it's followers?
It might be a 1400 year old question, but it still requires asking: when will islam have it's own reformation?
Or to put it another way, just how bad does this have to get?
Legend has it, that on the same day, 500 years earlier, Martin Luther published his thesis on the ails and ills of the Roman Catholic Church. His work was soon reprinted and distributed to begin what we now call the Protestant Reformation.
Whatever we think of the effects of that publication and the subsequent upheaval it initiated, there is no dispute that the words and ideas expressed resulted in a seismic shift in Christian thinking and history.
Back to the Manhattan murderer:-
He departs his killing machine, brandishing 'weapons' designed, not to kill more people, but to provoke his demise by a policeman's bullet, and entry to whatever his religion calls an afterlife; so convinced is he of martyrdom, that he shouts aloud that his god is greater [than that of those he has just slain] and waits to be shot dead. This doesn't happen, but his commitment to jihad remains.
And what does his community say? Are they appalled and dismayed by his actions, or are they committed to preserving their treasured status of victimhood?
So a question arises. Why does such a heinous crime, in the name of a 'religion of peace', not produce an outcry from his coreligionists?
If one document could so fundamentally change Christianity, how can so many acts of barbarism (more than 30,000 since 9/11), not change islam? And think about 9/11, almost 3000 killed and over 6000 injured, just a few blocks from this latest attack. Where was islam's introspection and debate following that earlier rendition of allahu akbar?
Surely, no true Religion of Peace could possibly continue unashamed and unabashed in the face of such brutality, without at least examining the possibility that so many koranic verses extolling the virtues of murder and mutilation might be having an effect on it's followers?
It might be a 1400 year old question, but it still requires asking: when will islam have it's own reformation?
Or to put it another way, just how bad does this have to get?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)