The French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said yesterday that his nation is at war against terrorism and radical Islam.
“We’re at war, but not at war against a religion, not against a civilisation, but at war to defend our values, which are universal,” Valls said in his late Saturday speech, the Huffington Post reported. ”It is a war against terrorism and radical Islam, against everything aimed at breaking solidarity, liberty and fraternity.”
He's right of course - we are all at war with radical Islam. Aren't we?
Well we are unless we're a supporter of radical Islam obviously. Might it be an idea, before long, to investigate this issue further to try to find out how many people in our midst do fall into this category?
Or unless we deny that there is a war going on. If you deny that there is a war going on then clearly you're not 'at war' with radical Islam. Because there is no war in your book. Just a few lone wolves causing mayhem around the world some of whom are using Islam as an excuse for their barbarity. Actually pretty much all of whom are using Islam as an excuse for their barbarity.
So the question arises as to what radical Islam actually is.
An objective view might be that it is an excuse for the carrying out of terrorist acts in revenge for the recent and historical actions of 'the West' which killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Middle East in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. I'm quite often confronted with this fact and this justification.
And I was vehemently against those wars - not on the principle that they were fought in order to protect and liberate the ordinary and downtrodden peoples in those places (which we were told) - but because our real motivation was revenge for 9/11, that the pious reasons were fabricated by Bliar and Bush and crucially that there was no real exit strategy. We had no idea what success looked like. Which meant that having 'defeated' the enemy of the ordinary people in those countries, we then walked away and left them to an even worse fate.
We were sold a pup by Bliar and Bush who ignored popular opinion against invasion and war and went ahead anyway and by their actions have essentially played a significant part in unleashing the beast that we now face today. I still harbour a dream that Bliar will be brought to justice eventually but the 'quick and no whitewash' Chilcot report is still to be published, six years and £9m later. And we, the taxpayer, are now paying for Bliar's lawyers to obfuscate and delay publication of the report. How mad is that?
All that being said, we are where we are now and we do face, in my opinion, a real war. Not a conventional one with Geneva conventions and all that, not with troops and tanks on both sides lining up against each other, but a 'modern' war with dirty tactics; the end justifying any of the means employed and a totally ruthless and 'inhuman' enemy that will employ tactics that we would never even contemplate.
And in this war 'hearts and minds' are not won by feeding and liberating people to get them on side, but by fear and terror; murder on the streets, and an enemy whose soldiers believe that dying is a glorious outcome. It's difficult to justify the threat that 'you will lose your life' to one's opponents if that is something they see as a good thing.
And by the time that one is facing these brainwashed people, there is simply no chance of bringing them around by trying to appeal to their intelligence. They want to be martyrs. They see it as their destiny and as a glorious and positive way for them to contribute to their cause.
Not what this blog is about, but in those circumstances, the only way out is to kill them or be killed. Negotiations or reasoning are just not going to bear any fruit. That's a scary thought.
OK so back to my theme - sorry for the ramble.
We're at war with radical Islam. Or we're not, that's up to you, but if we are, and here I agree with the French Prime Minister, what is radical Islam?
What is its motivation? What does it want to achieve?
The cynic in me thinks that it is all really about despotic, powerful and fabulously wealthy Middle Eastern rulers keeping their populations focused outwards via religious beliefs instead of on the fact that they buy Gold plated Ferraris while their people starve. I think a similar argument could also be made featuring the corporations and elites of the West as well. It's in the interests of both sides.
Some of it is clearly about keeping the world in some sort of turmoil so that leaders and the elite (on both sides) can carry on 'raping' us ordinary people regardless. A threat keeps us in line (on both sides) and allows increasing surveillance and increased control over ordinary people. People who are fighting each other will ignore - embrace even - their leaders and continue to blindly plow their money into the pockets of the ruling classes. I am in no way a 'leftie' by the way. Just for the avoidance of any doubt.
Conflict is essentially what keeps the US economy turning over, the arms industry and the US military machine. Peace is not in their interests.
And we're 'Useful idiots'.
If the above (cynical) view is true then we have no chance of ever solving the problem, but let's instead talk about where we are now. The alternative is just too depressing.
Regardless of the overriding, (and my theoretical) top level reasons why global conflict continues unabated, at the lower 'executive' level on the streets the rationale or motivation seems to me to be about people who have nothing to lose waging a war of envy: Trying to better themselves at the expense of richer people in richer countries by cowering them into submission. At this secondary level the motivation behind the conflict is, in my opinion, economic. It's about poverty - the living of lives which have very little in the way of hope or even comfort: lives which have little value to the individuals themselves, which makes them much more receptive to the brainwashing of their leaders.
And just as man-made religion has always been about the exertion of control and influence over others - and the development of the ultimate trump card: 'He can see you all the time, knows what you're doing and thinking and He would want you to do his wishes as defined by His book (but interpreted by 'us)', is very difficult for poor, illiterate people to disregard. Heck it's difficult for wealthy, well-educated people in their billions around the world to disregard.
All of which adds up to the fact that religion is at the centre of this struggle. Because it is being used by radical Islam to deliver carnage on the ground; on our streets. Whether it's about actual religious belief or other motivations is arguable (as I have outlined above) but really it doesn't matter. The fact is that religion is at the root of the problem we now face because the people committing these crimes are doing so in God's (Allah's) name.
And really regardless of whether you think we are 'at war' with radical Islam or not, the fact is that it (radical Islam) is at war with us.
The question, therefore, is effectively: how deeply ingrained is radical Islam? How widespread is it? Is it prevalent in all Muslim communities? Are the verses of the Quran that these madmen quote to justify their barbarity part of everyday life for Muslims? Can Muslims ignore these verses in their daily lives? Or are they secretly supporting the actions of their extreme brethren because their 'good book' tells them so and effectively controls their lives on a daily basis?
I do of course understand the argument that the Bible (particularly the Old testament) contains just as much in the way of barbarity as the Quran. But there is a massive difference here. Via the enlightenment we have been able to translate and question the Bible and its teachings against a more modern backdrop. Its threats of eternal damnation for non-believers have been diluted and membership of the club is now about freedom of choice and faith rather than coercion or threat. This allows it to be questioned, ridiculed even but it has proved itself to be strong enough to withstand criticism and survive.
None of this is true of the Quran. It is controlled by the Ayatollahs and Imams: a translation of the Quran cannot be called the true book. We're told that it is the true word of Allah, that it cannot be questioned and that the later, more violent verses and teachings supersede the earlier ones. Effectively our own history of burning unbelievers at the stake and the tooth and nail fight by our religious establishment in the middle ages not to allow the enlightenment to take place, is pretty much what we are seeing today with regard to the Quran (which is 700 years younger than the bible and so at a different stage in its life).
The proponents of the Quran are effectively resisting any attempt to modernise the teachings of Mohammad in order to retain control over their believers. It is why they take such draconian and medieval action whenever he is ridiculed. And why the proponents of free speech and modernity do actually poke fun at Mohammad and the Quran.
 |
| Today's new edition of Charlie Hebdo |
I think we do, therefore, need to know how ingrained radical Islam is amongst the Muslim community in order to make a good value judgement about how we go forward as communities in the western world. Farage and the French think we have a 5th column. An 'enemy within'. They may be wrong - I hope they are - but if we ignore this issue we're mad. We need to ask our Muslim neighbours the question. We need to find out if there is an enemy within.
Before we get to the point where we're facing a group of people who see death as the final victory.
In the end only the Muslim community in the UK (and around the world) can stop this madness. We cannot do it ourselves (peacefully) and my fear is that if they do secretly support this extremism, the only solution will be draconian and violent. I'm not saying that they do all support radical Islam by the way. I'm saying that I simply don't know and that by denying that we have a problem, there is no way that our politicians or our media knows either - and crucially they're not even trying to find out.
I am saying that time is running critically short for 'moderate Mulims' to denounce radical Islam.
Whether you're 'at war' with radical Islam or not, they are at war with us. And it's now almost but not quite, too late for us to wake up to this threat to our very way of life.
Should we die or lose our freedom for want of asking a few simple questions? 'Are you on our side or not?' 'In favour of a modern outlook on respect and tolerance or not?' 'Willing to abide by the laws, values and (secular) traditions of our land or not?'
The bottom line is perhaps: 'Is Islam really the religion of peace? Does your Muslim faith allow you to ignore some of the more virulent passages of the Quran - particularly those teaching that non-believers are third class human beings and that Islam must be spread around the world using any means available including violence? Or not?'
I think it would clearly be stupid to go any further down the route of integration without asking these simple questions.
Yet this is the policy of our government, supported by our mainstream media right now.
If we continue to ignore this we might find that we are the enemies of people we have welcomed into our country; have protected, cared for, educated and provided with opportunities that were simply not available in their countries of origin.
We might be helping our sworn enemies (their stance not ours) to take over our lives in a way that is not what we want and, looking at conditions, particularly for women in Muslim countries around the world, would not be recognised by most 'Westerners' as progress; but at least we won't have offended anyone.
I think most of us would take being offended over being dead. I also think that many, if not all, of us would be prepared to fight to maintain our hard-won freedoms in the West. Otherwise what's the point?
It's time, I think, that this process began and in a civilised but unconditional way. It's time to stop ignoring the fact that we do have a problem.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment