"War Begets War: It’s Not about Islam; It Never Was"
War Begets War: It’s Not about Islam; It Never Was
Since Francis Fukuyama declared the “End of History” in 1992 – reveling that free markets and “liberal democracies” will reign supreme forever – followed by Samuel Huntington’s supposed contrasting, but still equally conceited, view of the “Clash of Civilizations and the need to “remake the world order”, a whole new intellectual industry has embroiled many in Washington, London and elsewhere. Once the Cold War had triumphantly ended with an inflated sense of political validation, the Middle East became the new playground for ideas about dominion and military hardware.
Since then, it has been an all-out war, either instigated by or involving various western powers. It was a protracted, multi-dimensional war: a destructive war on the ground, an economic war (blockades on the one hand and globalization and free market exploitation on the other), cultural invasion (that made westernisation of society equivalent to modernity); topped with a massive propaganda war targeting the Middle East’s leading religion: Islam.
The war on Islam was particularly vital, as it seemed to unify a large range of western intellectuals, conservative, liberal, religious and secular alike. All done for good reasons:
– Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life. By demonizing Islam, you demonize everything associated with it, including, of course, Muslims.
– The vilification of Islam which morphed into massive western-led Islamophobia helped validate the actions of western governments, however violent and abusive. The dehumanization of Muslims became an essential weapon in war.
– It was also strategic: hating Islam and all Muslims is a very flexible tool that would make military intervention and economic sanctions possible anywhere where the West has political and economic interests. Hating Islam became a unifying rally-cry from advocates of sanctions on Sudan to anti-immigrant neo-Nazi groups in Germany, and everywhere else. The issue is no longer the violent means used to achieve political domination and control of natural resources, but, magically, it all was reduced to one single word: Islam; or, at best, Islam and something else: freedom of expression, women rights, and so forth.
Thus, it was no surprise to see the likes of Ian Black commenting in the Guardian, hours after gunmen carried out a lethal attack in Paris against a French Magazine on Wednesday, 7 January with the starting line: “Satire and Islam do not sit well together…”
Not a word on the French military and other forms of intervention in the Middle East; its destructive role in Syria; its leadership role in the war in Libya; its war in Mali, and so on. Not even a word on François Holland’s recent statement about being “ready” to bomb Libyan rebels, although it was made only few days earlier.
Sure, the pornographic satire of Charlie Hebdo and its targeting of Prophet Mohammed was mentioned, but little was said, by Black, or the many others who were quick to link the subject to “7th century Islam”, to the hideous wars and their horrible, pornographic manifestations of torture, rape and other unspeakable acts; acts that victimized millions of people; Muslim people. Instead, it about western art and Muslim intolerance. The subtle line was: yes, indeed, it is a “clash of civilizations”.
More at.......
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/war-begets-war-its-not-about-islam-it-never-was/
= new reply since forum marked as read
and I didn't get that impression at all from what he was expressing. Your wording is not the writers.
"This is no more than a paean to Islam. It's great. It's wonderful. It's spotless and shiny and if not for the evil west there would be no problems. He's actually saying that Islam is the template for a utopian society. And I say nonsense. There is no template for a utopian society.
This is just the mirror image of America is the shining city on the hill bullshit."
like saying all Christians supported the Spanish Inquistion when it was the rogue actions of the High Priests in the Catholic Church who had broken from the principles of Christianity . Or, blaming all U.S. Christians because subgroups of U.S. Fundamentalist Christians support hateful actions against women, GLBT, and African Americans other minorities. Or, all Jews are responsible for the actions of the extremists like LIKKUD in their midst.
Blaming a whole people and their religion for the acts and deeds of their few is a useful tool for those who have other reasons for engaging in war. Been that way throughout history. But, now we are in a time where we are in danger of Global War if we can't get the moneyed interests of the Global MIC held to account.
Remember Bush II called it a "Crusade" before he had to be corrected.
Oh...and about "Blow Back." When the crimes of the few are used to punish a whole religion, ethnic group or sex/gender then the group as a whole has a right to push back. In the case of the U.S./NATO Invasions/Inteventions....the populations of most of ME and extending now into Africa are suffering and the death and destruction may never be repaired. There are many religions and ethnic groups caught up in this who had nothing[ to do with any of this...now homeless, dislocated from families, communities, businesses to earn a living and tens thousands who are dead for little reason than that they lived in the wrong place at the wrong time.
My read of the article is very different from yours....but, hey...you are entitled to your view. 
I didn't see anything in that writer's view that says what you say, here:
There you go. Islam is now completely insulated from any criticism. Because if you criticize any of the nonsensical BS in the Koran, you automatically are a bigot.
It seems quite a distortion in thinking if you read the whole article or missed my Reply downthread about Religions.
