Showing posts with label Communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Communism. Show all posts
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Why ignore lessons from years ago?
by Salim MansurInto the ninth year since the menace of Islamism spilled out well beyond the borders of the Arab-Muslim world, the West and the U.S. in particular continue to be incoherent about how to respond.
To get a sense of this incoherence in dealing with Islamism effectively, we need to recall how the west, led by the U.S., dealt with a far greater existential challenge from the Bolshevik-Communist threat of the Soviet Union armed with nuclear might.
At the end of the war against Hitler's Germany, Europe lay in smouldering ruins, its population terrorized, broken and displaced. The war against Japan in Asia and the Pacific ended with A-bombs and complemented the devastation in Europe. The human toll of the war is estimated to have been more than 70 million dead.
The war that began with Hitler's army invading Poland ended with Stalin's army taking Berlin and dividing Europe in half. The spectre of Bolshevik-Communism that had loomed over Europe since 1917 became real in 1945 as the eastern half of the continent traded one form of totalitarian tyranny for another.
But for the generation of Americans, Canadians, Brits and others — now remembered rightly as the greatest generation — and their leaders, however exhausted by the ordeal of 1939-45, the task of holding the line against tyranny had to be met in defence of freedom, and it was met.
In March 1946, Winston Churchill, then out of office, travelled to Fulton, Mo., and U.S. president Harry Truman's home state. At Westminster College, Churchill gave his now famous "The Sinews of Peace" speech in which he warned Americans of the communist peril in Europe divided by an iron curtain.
Churchill understood the nature of totalitarian communism as he had of European fascism during the 1930s. Truman took Churchill's warning to heart and so did that generation of Americans.
The following year in July 1947, George Kennan, an American diplomat, published an essay titled "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" in Foreign Affairs magazine. Kennan had studied Russia all his life, spoke the language and served in Moscow from 1944 to 1946 as the chief of U.S. mission.
Kennan had witnessed the brutal nature of Soviet ideology and watched the display of its expansionist ambitions. He provided the Truman administration with the intellectual foundation for what became the policy of containing the Soviet Union.
Years of European appeasement and American isolationism had brought a devastated world to the cliffhanger between freedom and tyranny in 1945.
Yet that generation rose to the occasion. It met the challenge of communism, implemented the containment policy, provided resources such as the Marshall Plan for the recovery of Europe, fielded armies in freedom's defence, helped end colonialism, founded the United Nations and laid the institutional framework for democracy and developmental assistance around the world.
Soviet Communism was contained and defeated. Chinese communists eventually became capitalist freeloaders. And almost without exception, people around the world came to want democracy, irrespective of how well or poorly they understood its workings.
In retrospect, it is remarkable — in contrast to the present western incoherence against Islamism — how quickly the greatest generation grasped the threat posed by Soviet Communism and responded with a coherent policy that prevailed.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
'Turning' Islamists
During the Cold War, Westerners consoled themselves in the belief that most people behind the Iron Curtain did not believe in Communism; they were simply entrapped by a morally bankrupt system driven by a moribund ideology. It was not so much the allure of capitalism that ultimately won over the people of Eastern Europe; it was the failure of Communism.
What will it take to "turn" vast numbers of Muslims now enthralled with extremist Islam, and convince those uncommitted, not to follow the path of the Islamists?
Much depends on the outcome of the ongoing battle within Islamic civilization between those promoting jihad against the West and those who say Islam does not need to tear down the West in order to thrive.
Much depends on the outcome of the ongoing battle within Islamic civilization between those promoting jihad against the West and those who say Islam does not need to tear down the West in order to thrive.
Yesterday, this newspaper carried a Washington Post dispatch, "Jordan emerges as key CIA counterterrorism ally." The story by that paper's national security reporter revealed that a Jordanian agent working in tandem with American intelligence had been killed by the Islamist suicide bomber who struck a CIA base near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border last week.
It now transpires that the suicide bomber was a 36-year-old Jordanian physician named Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi. He had been "turned" - or so it was thought - during a stint in a Jordanian prison for jihadi activities.
According to Al Jazeera, the medical-man-turned-suicide-bomber was in Afghanistan to trap another physician, Ayman al-Zawahiri, one of al-Qaida's two top leaders. Balawi had provided so much reliable information that he was trusted to enter the CIA post without being thoroughly searched.
The dead agent, Sharif Ali bin Zeid, was Balawi's handler. King Abdullah II participated in Zeid's funeral, raising the ire of Islamists within his kingdom.
This murky story of spycraft and betrayal serves as a metaphor for how the still-nameless war between freedom, moderation and enlightenment against the benighted forces of coercion, fanaticism and medievalism needs to be waged - by pushing Muslims to choose: the way of Balawi or the way of Zeid.
The most practical way to overcome the Islamists is for them to be defeated from within. After all, non-Islamists have a profound stake in the outcome.
YESTERDAY, President Barack Obama met with his top domestic and foreign national security advisers in the White House situation room. The agenda was two-fold: to unravel what went wrong, both on the systemic and personnel level, that allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board Northwest Flight 253; and to take stock of the damage caused by what Balawi did at Forward Operating Base Chapman.
Along with Zeid, seven brave CIA agents, with a combined 100 years' of expertise, were lost. This betrayal, like previous acts of perfidy in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, underscored how dependent the West is on human intelligence provided by those who swim in a sea of anti-Western fanaticism.
Other lessons emerge. The Islamists must not be underestimated. They are getting good at counter-intelligence and disinformation. Israelis have seen this with Hizbullah.
Now Peter Baker of The New York Times has revealed that US intelligence was nearly fooled into thinking that Islamists from Somalia had infiltrated into the US in order to detonate bombs during Obama's inaugural address.
Fortunately, John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, deduced that a "poison pen" operation was afoot. One terror group was trying to get the US to take out its rivals. Pretty sophisticated stuff and illustrative of what the West is up against.
Another lesson is not to belittle suicide bombers as "sad guys with no self esteem," or risk being surprised by those like Balawi, who are harder to pigeonhole.
The doctor had once told an Islamist magazine: "I have had a predisposition for... jihad and martyrdom since I was little. If love of jihad enters a man's heart, it will not leave him, even if he wants to do so."
CLEARLY, some Islamists are irredeemable. But others are not. If the West recognizes the scale of the challenge and confronts it effectively, and if there are enough courageous men the caliber of Sharif Ali bin Zeid working to preserve Islam from within, we can be reasonably hopeful that the jihadis will one day find themselves relegated to the dustbin of history.
If...
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Choosing Freedom over Islam, and the Story of Wafa Sultan
Today I attended a Q&A Wafa Sultan as part of a book signing for her new book, and I noticed that the common theme of virtually every question that was asked by the attendees could be summed up as, "What can we do to stop Islam?"There is of course no simple answer. Communism, the closest parallel to the current threat we face, attacked us at a military, political and cultural level.
Islam attacks us at a military, political, cultural and religious level-- making it a four part threat. And while the Soviet Union did finally collapse, looking at the state of freedom in America and Europe today, at a political environment that has dispensed with democracy in favor of judicial activism and class warfare politics that owe a good deal to the dictatorship of the proletariat-- the question of whether we defeated Communism, or Communism defeated us, remains open.
The Soviet Union proved unable to defeat us militarily, despite dedicating the bulk of its industrial capacity to building weapons, and successfully allying with much of the Third World to create an anti-Western world order in the U.N.
But culturally and politically, Communism did a great deal of damage in the West. More so than most people understand. The American and European of the year 2009 lives in a system whose political premises resemble those of the USSR more than they do his own country of 1909.
And this goes to show us that Communism accomplished far more through subversion and infiltration than nationalism and armed conquest. And the best proof of that is Eastern Europe, which was today is more honestly capitalistic than Western Europe which spent the last half century free of the Soviet boot.
Had Trotsky's way prevailed over that of his less visionary contemporaries, Communism might have triumphed as an international revolutionary movement, rather than failing as a Second World poorly industrialized armed camp.
And that is a scaled down version of the threat that we face with Islam today, backed by oil money from otherwise backward countries, polished by the disingenuous lies of a merchant culture and driven by a fanaticism that even few Communists could aspire to. And we have no better answers to the problem of what to do about a movement that subverts our society from within, than we did back then.
In her talk Wafa Sultan emphasized the importance of being informed about the real nature of Islam. And certainly the first stage of defense against cultural, political and religious threats-- which circulate by way of ideas, is to be informed.
But information itself is very much a subjective thing. It is possible to tell someone that Islam is currently involved in conflicts all over the world, that it is responsible for millions of deaths through acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
You can list all the objective facts about Islam, without in the least shaking his belief that Islam is all right based on episodes he's seen of Little Mosque on the Prairie or because Mohammed, the deli guy in the store under his office, is always friendly when he comes in for a sandwich.
For rational people the objective facts of the case may suffice, for most people they will not. We live in an age where objective reasoning has been destroyed in the First World through a process of careful cultural obliteration.
To tell someone that a million are dead in Darfur is to give him a meaningless statistic that is "awful", but not relatable. By contrast, to chronicle the story of a single orphan does far more than listing the millions dead and raped.
Islam attacks us at a military, political, cultural and religious level-- making it a four part threat. And while the Soviet Union did finally collapse, looking at the state of freedom in America and Europe today, at a political environment that has dispensed with democracy in favor of judicial activism and class warfare politics that owe a good deal to the dictatorship of the proletariat-- the question of whether we defeated Communism, or Communism defeated us, remains open.
The Soviet Union proved unable to defeat us militarily, despite dedicating the bulk of its industrial capacity to building weapons, and successfully allying with much of the Third World to create an anti-Western world order in the U.N.
But culturally and politically, Communism did a great deal of damage in the West. More so than most people understand. The American and European of the year 2009 lives in a system whose political premises resemble those of the USSR more than they do his own country of 1909.
And this goes to show us that Communism accomplished far more through subversion and infiltration than nationalism and armed conquest. And the best proof of that is Eastern Europe, which was today is more honestly capitalistic than Western Europe which spent the last half century free of the Soviet boot.
Had Trotsky's way prevailed over that of his less visionary contemporaries, Communism might have triumphed as an international revolutionary movement, rather than failing as a Second World poorly industrialized armed camp.
And that is a scaled down version of the threat that we face with Islam today, backed by oil money from otherwise backward countries, polished by the disingenuous lies of a merchant culture and driven by a fanaticism that even few Communists could aspire to. And we have no better answers to the problem of what to do about a movement that subverts our society from within, than we did back then.
In her talk Wafa Sultan emphasized the importance of being informed about the real nature of Islam. And certainly the first stage of defense against cultural, political and religious threats-- which circulate by way of ideas, is to be informed.
But information itself is very much a subjective thing. It is possible to tell someone that Islam is currently involved in conflicts all over the world, that it is responsible for millions of deaths through acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
You can list all the objective facts about Islam, without in the least shaking his belief that Islam is all right based on episodes he's seen of Little Mosque on the Prairie or because Mohammed, the deli guy in the store under his office, is always friendly when he comes in for a sandwich.
For rational people the objective facts of the case may suffice, for most people they will not. We live in an age where objective reasoning has been destroyed in the First World through a process of careful cultural obliteration.
To tell someone that a million are dead in Darfur is to give him a meaningless statistic that is "awful", but not relatable. By contrast, to chronicle the story of a single orphan does far more than listing the millions dead and raped.
h/t gramfan
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
What Muslims Owe America
If you listen to the outraged wails of leftists and Muslims, you might reasonably be under the impression that the United States is in the business of persecuting Muslims. The reality is radically different. If anything American policies should have made us the Muslims' best friends. Before 9/11, the United States had fought two wars on behalf of Muslims, the Gulf War under George Bush Sr. and the Kosovo War under Bill Clinton.
In fact during the second half of the 20th century, the only wars that the United States fought that were not against Communism or Nazism-- were fought on behalf of Muslims.
That is not a fact that you will glean from any of the usual media portrayals of the United States foreign policy as hostile to Muslims. In fact US foreign policy was about as helpful to Muslims as you can imagine.
Until 9/11, the United States had never invaded and occupied a single sovereign Muslim country. The closest it came was the First Barbary War in 1801, in response to piracy against American vessels and the liberation of North Africa from Hitler's Vichy allies in WW2. And of course the misguided attempt at participating in a peacekeeping force in Beirut.
Not only that, America had developed much of the oil wealth that would keep the Gulf States in gold, skyscrapers and slave labor. And when the leaders of the Gulf States seized American oil companies, the United States government did not fight a war, as England did when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, instead the US government paid oil companies to take the loss... out of taxpayer money.
The fear of a Communist takeover helped turn America into one of the biggest patrons of Muslim countries, from the Middle East to Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan. America willingly closed its eyes to Indonesia's genocide in East Timor, and even supplied them with weapons. America provided the weapons and funding that Pakistan would channel into the Taliban. And naturally we ignored Turkey's pesky little genocide of the Armenians and avoided ever discussing the issue.
So by 9/11, not only had America repeatedly sent soldiers to fight and die for Muslims in two wars... but it had robbed its own taxpayers rather than challenge them over the nationalization of the assets of American companies, and had proved willing to aid and even overlook the genocides of Muslim regimes. So naturally by the warped logic of leftists and Muslims... American foreign policy was "oppressive" to Muslims.
The root of the leftist critique of American foreign policy typically rests on two planks. The first blames America for supporting dictators in Muslim countries. This would be a more legitimate critique if there were any free and democratic Muslim countries around. As it was, America simply supported whoever was in power and wasn't allied with the USSR. This might have been an immoral policy, but during the Cold War it was a continuation of the same kind of thinking that caused the US to ally with the USSR against Nazi Germany.
The left's implication was always that by supporting dictators in Muslim countries, the United States was preventing the rise of more legitimate governments. It is not clear where these legitimate governments were or how they were ever supposed to arise. Syria is a dictatorship without us ever supporting Assad. Egypt was a dictatorship when it was allied with the USSR under Nasser. It is still a dictatorship now that it is allied with us under Mubarak. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the left wing appeasement corps working for Jimmy Carter decided not to interfere. The result was not a democratic government or even a leftist one, but a radical Islamist one under the Ayatollahs.
The second plank is of course Israel. The United States did decide to finally cultivate Israel as an ally back under JFK in the 60's. This was in sharp contrast to far longer US ties with the House of Saud or the Eisenhower Administration's willingness to destroy England's economy in order to protect Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal.
And the United States has provided Israel with billions in aid. As well as providing billions in aid to Egypt and Jordan. Not to mention the aid given to Turkey and Pakistan. Or the cost of the first Gulf War undertaken to liberate Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein.
In fact during the second half of the 20th century, the only wars that the United States fought that were not against Communism or Nazism-- were fought on behalf of Muslims.
That is not a fact that you will glean from any of the usual media portrayals of the United States foreign policy as hostile to Muslims. In fact US foreign policy was about as helpful to Muslims as you can imagine.
Until 9/11, the United States had never invaded and occupied a single sovereign Muslim country. The closest it came was the First Barbary War in 1801, in response to piracy against American vessels and the liberation of North Africa from Hitler's Vichy allies in WW2. And of course the misguided attempt at participating in a peacekeeping force in Beirut.
Not only that, America had developed much of the oil wealth that would keep the Gulf States in gold, skyscrapers and slave labor. And when the leaders of the Gulf States seized American oil companies, the United States government did not fight a war, as England did when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, instead the US government paid oil companies to take the loss... out of taxpayer money.
The fear of a Communist takeover helped turn America into one of the biggest patrons of Muslim countries, from the Middle East to Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan. America willingly closed its eyes to Indonesia's genocide in East Timor, and even supplied them with weapons. America provided the weapons and funding that Pakistan would channel into the Taliban. And naturally we ignored Turkey's pesky little genocide of the Armenians and avoided ever discussing the issue.
So by 9/11, not only had America repeatedly sent soldiers to fight and die for Muslims in two wars... but it had robbed its own taxpayers rather than challenge them over the nationalization of the assets of American companies, and had proved willing to aid and even overlook the genocides of Muslim regimes. So naturally by the warped logic of leftists and Muslims... American foreign policy was "oppressive" to Muslims.
The root of the leftist critique of American foreign policy typically rests on two planks. The first blames America for supporting dictators in Muslim countries. This would be a more legitimate critique if there were any free and democratic Muslim countries around. As it was, America simply supported whoever was in power and wasn't allied with the USSR. This might have been an immoral policy, but during the Cold War it was a continuation of the same kind of thinking that caused the US to ally with the USSR against Nazi Germany.
The left's implication was always that by supporting dictators in Muslim countries, the United States was preventing the rise of more legitimate governments. It is not clear where these legitimate governments were or how they were ever supposed to arise. Syria is a dictatorship without us ever supporting Assad. Egypt was a dictatorship when it was allied with the USSR under Nasser. It is still a dictatorship now that it is allied with us under Mubarak. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the left wing appeasement corps working for Jimmy Carter decided not to interfere. The result was not a democratic government or even a leftist one, but a radical Islamist one under the Ayatollahs.
The second plank is of course Israel. The United States did decide to finally cultivate Israel as an ally back under JFK in the 60's. This was in sharp contrast to far longer US ties with the House of Saud or the Eisenhower Administration's willingness to destroy England's economy in order to protect Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal.
And the United States has provided Israel with billions in aid. As well as providing billions in aid to Egypt and Jordan. Not to mention the aid given to Turkey and Pakistan. Or the cost of the first Gulf War undertaken to liberate Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein.
H/T: gramfan
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Europe: after Communism a Void to be filled by Islamism?
Magdi Cristiano Allam (The Friendship Gathering, Evian, October 4th 2009)
Our Europe is a nation destined to a demographic, family, social and economic suicide. Because Europe is ashamed of its own roots, it looses its own beliefs, renounces to its own values and betrays its own identity.
This Europe continues to enlarge like a materialistic colossus without soul, seeking an illusory conception of happiness, based on a spasmodic and obsessive possession of materialistic goods, which reduces the human person to the sole dimension of ownership and which develops at the expense of the dimension of being and believing.
Europeans worship the gods of Money and Oil, in the presence of which they always stand ready. They do not hesitate bargaining their whole civilization in return of materialistic acquisitions. They sale democracy and crush underfoot there own dignity in order to obtain the favours of dictators and tyrants.In four words, our Europe shows itself as a "land of no one", a land on which there can be no certitudes concerning beliefs, values, identity and rules. As a consequence, Europe is perceived as a "land to conquer" , a process that is already under way.
Europe's collapse as a Nation and as a civilization runs the risk to transform EU into a Chinese colony at the economic level and/or into an area submitted to the Islamic ideology at the cultural- and social level.
The financial and economic crisis induced by the explosion of the speculative bubble fed by those who have disconnected the creation of money from the production of goods and services, has swept them to the collapse of the free trade ideology. This myth is based on the illusion that a spontaneous balance between the supply and demand of goods, services and money is sufficient to ensure the global market welfare, itself adored as a Perfect God that should never be "contaminated by the interference of any authority that has not been elected by the market".
Today, we assist to an extraordinary and unprecedented spectacle, where the United State's Government, the leading capitalist government, is purchasing private Banks. Now, even within capitalists ranks voices call for Governmental interventions, with always more massive injection of public money in order to prevent the further bankruptcy of banks and major companies. Although this mutualisation of risks and socialization of losses, is presented as a provisional anomaly which cannot be perpetuated, they forecast a deep change in the consciences and hence, in the way of functioning of the market economy.
It is obvious that this current situation implies a call for social equity which willinevitably lead to a new model of economic development, championing therespect for human dignity, rather than reducing the human being to the levelof a simple object of material growth: a model which seeks the common good,rather than satisfying the greed of a minority'. In this framework, we can say that the prospective of a social economy of the Market and the Church's social doctrine are re-emerging with an extraordinary topicality.
The collapse of the free trade ideological curtain, allowed by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September 2008, is the most important event since the collapse of the Berlin wall in November 1989.
The first event has shown the success of the capitalistic and democratic system against the centralised and authoritarian communist system. The second event has proven the unsustainability of the Western civilization, in particular of Europe, since it has lost its own judeo-christian roots and abandoned its own faith. Former Pope Jean Paul the second has claimed the necessity of a Christian revival for Europe. Because this Europe without soul is becoming more and more "relativist", secularist, nihilist, Islamically correct, pusillanimous, fainthearted and multiculturalist.
- Relativisim, which denies the use of reason and of the faculty of criticism with a view to please everybody, puts at the same level all religions, cultures and values, and credits equal dignity to everything and its contrary.
- Laicism (extremist conception of secularity) leads to the exclusion of spirituality and family, the mortar or the cement that bound people beyond their sole economic ties.- Nihilism denies the very conception of truth, as it does not recognize the merit of values.- Goodness Ideology is based on the belief that we must just offer to the newcomers all what they want without the consent of the community to which they were originally intended.
- Islamically correctness obliges us not telling and not doing what could disturb the "touchiness" of Muslims. It obliges us giving up essential human rights in our acts and dids, with an interested complacentness towards Muslim authorities.
- Multiculturalism is the ideology that proposes ruling individuals, coming from different cultural horizons, just as goods exchanged in a market economy. This ideology imagines that it would be possible to rule the multicultural reality - or the presence inside of the European area of those who come from differents countries, cultures, or religions - just by extending rights and freedoms with no limits and without expecting in return any duties or any respect of rules. It neglects and forget that only Identity and values are able cement able to gather.
In this Europe transformed into a desert land, concepts like dialogue and living together seem to be empty of meaning. In the end, this process reduces civilization to a list of pretensions and claims imposed day by day by all those who arrive and who settle. The result is that Europe has changed into a New Mecca of extremism and Islamic terrorism. This Islamic terrorism has been strengthened by new and growing networks of mosques, Islamic schools, Islamic banks, relief organizations and even Islamic courts which have given life to a theocratic State within the Law-based State.In 2006, former American president George Bush and former British Primer Tony Blair conceived a suicide strategy based on the idea that in order to save the West from the Islamic terror of those that I called "cut heads" , we should trust Islamic terror implemented by those that I call the "cut-Thongs" (? Could you explain what you mean by ‘cut-thongs? We need to find another word…).
The first are those who consider death instead of life as the supreme level of spirituality and aim to die in order to murder the largest possible number of enemies of Islam. The second are those who "save" our life, thanks to their goodness, in return for their full legitimization as the main religious Islamic authority and the main representatives of all Muslims.At the same time, the West has fully legitimized Islam, of the Koran, of Allah, of Mohamed and of the Sharià , puting them at the same level as Christianity and Judaism.
So, the West is willing to accept that it’s possible to allocate derogations and authorizations to make special exceptions in matters of duties and rights, in matter of freedom and rules, in the name of the religious, cultural, social specificity of Islam, even if those Islamic specificities are in full contradiction and opposition with fundamental human rights, in particular with the women’s rights, and even then those Islamic specificity contrast with non-negotiables, absolute and universal values, beginning by the fact that life is Sacred.
The wicked suicide strategy implemented by George Bush and Tony Blair led in 2006, to the rise to power of Muslim Brotherhoods, under all their different names, in Palestinian territories and in Egypt. In the same way, this suicide strategy has strengthened and legitimized the media, religious, political, and financial power of Islamic organizations that in fact represent the Muslim Brotherhoods in Europe.
The ingenuity, ignorance, fear and ideological collusion of this Europe is pushing the EU to succumb more and more to the arbitrary of Muslim Brotherhoods. Those have been legitimised as representatives of Islam and Muslims though they are an extremist movement which preaches the destruction of Israel and supports Palestinian and Iraqi suicide-terrorism. Muslim Brotherhoods also consider that woman is an inferior being, they legitimate death pain for apostasy, they preach the Advent of an Islamic worldwilde Califate.
One of the most artful intellectuals linked with the Muslim Brotherhoods, Tariq Ramadan, is striving to have Islam officially recognised as one of the main sources of the identity and historical roots of European civilization and spirituality, as along with Christianity and Judaism.It is quite clear that Europe has reached a stage where it is tending to deny its own Jewish-Christian roots. It is quite clear that the cultural and identity gap left by this denial will eventually be filled by a claim for Islamic roots..
The rise of Islamic network power in Europe is becoming so huge that today, Europe has become a producer of suicide-terrorists who have already been involved in suicide-attacks in many Jihad or holy war front-lines all over the world and also inside the European territory. That is the most alarming symptom of the deep failure of a European coexistence pattern unable first to assure the security of its nationals, second to favor a constructive integration of those who choose to share our physical, cultural, identity and values area of civilization (please give me the end of this sentence in Italian – it isn’t clear).
The existence of ethnical ghettos in countries who believed in the multicultural myth and in other countries where an assimilation conception of integration was imposed, constitutes the main proof that Europe is no longer able to affirm and ensure an integration pattern within its territory, where rules are the same for every one without any exception. Those ghettos have caused the split of social ties and have created conflicting issues that sometimes have culminated in Islamic Terror and even in suicide attacks.This is the most obvious proof that Europe is no longer able to affirm in its own area its model based on the fact that rules are the same for everyone.
In conclusion, it's obvious that the causes of the current and structural financial and economic crisis and of the failure of the coexistence pattern are the abandonment of our values and the betrayal of the European identity based on its judeo-christian roots. At the same level, it's obvious that the only way for Europe to be able to redeem herself and save herself from the suicide's abyss of our nation and civilization will be to rediscover her soul.We will able to reach this goal only if we can redefine substantially different patterns of economic development and social coexistence that should put ethics at the center.The new pattern of development must be based on the centrality of the dignity of the Person and on the necessity to pursue the Common Interest.
This new model must use to advantage the environmental and human specificity that does not fear foreign competition; This new pattern must consider the prospective of a better quality of life with a more modest standard of living at a materialistic level. In this way, materialism and production will be at the disposal of the human person rather than the contrary, when the person is enslaved by materialism. This new pattern of social coexistence must be based and rooted on the sharing of non- negotiable values without any exception, on the level of rules which sustain rights and duties that must be the same for every one without any discrimination.
This roadmap of ramson will be possible if Europe can reconcile with herself, if she loves and pursues the Common interest; if she recovers the culture of duties and rules, if she understands that religions are physically different, and that Islam is substantially incompatible with our civilization. We must make it clear that it's possible to dialogue with Muslims as people and it's necessary to coexist if they respect all the fundamental rights of the human person and if they share our non- negotiable values. Those values are based on the belief that life is holy, and on the respect of dignity and freedom of the human person.We Europeans, we free men and women, we, people of good will, must reach this objective!
There is no alternative for the success of our mission in favor of Life, Truth, freedom and real peace. We will succeed if every one of us assumes their own part of responsibility and if every one of us, here and now, in our common house, we is fully able to be ourself by affirming our dignity and by safeguarding our freedom..
MAGDI CRISTIANO ALLAM
Source: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=179092525099&ref=nf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
