Sunday, May 18. 2008
World War IV: Europe on the Front Line
Posted by Sonja Bonin in European Issues on Sunday, May 18. 2008
While Swiss media are reporting Al Qaeda bomb threats during the upcoming EU- soccer championship (taking place in Switzerland and Austria), Eric Grover warns from an Islamic "World War IV" against the West on blogactiv. This entry was cross-posted from blogactiv with permission and without further editing. It does not represent the Atlantic Review's opinion on the matter:
"A resurgent fundamentalist Islam is engaged in a global war against the West and the rest of the infidel world. In World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism former Commentary editor in chief Norman Podhoretz calls it WW4.
Republican presidential frontrunner John McCain believes "the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremists." Mitt Romney said the “philosophy of radical jihadism says, ‘We want to kill.’” In stark contrast, Democrats, George Bush and many European leaders talk about combating terrorism – a means, disembodied from any animating ideology or purpose. It is as if in WW2 Roosevelt and Churchill had called for waging war against Panzer tanks. UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in a positively Orwellian construction now refers to Islamic terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.”
21st century Europeans and Americans no longer understand men motivated by and willing, indeed eager, to kill and die for their faith.
Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich in his speech “Where Do We Go from Here? Lessons from the First Five Years of the War” warns the West is sleep-walking while smart, utterly committed and ruthless jihadists plot how to kill us.
Hopefully, it will not take a horrific attack to wake the West. The West needs serious policy and action to: (1) prevent Islamists from acquiring WMD (2) recognize and confront Islamic ideology and (3) rationalize its immigration policies.
Since 9/11 direct attacks have been foremost in our minds.
If Al Qaeda had atomic weapons, given the opportunity, can anyone doubt it would use them on New York, London or Paris, or if similarly armed, that Iran’s mullahs would try to annihilate “the little Satan” Israel and menace Europe?
As leader of the free world the “Great Satan” America is in the jihadists’ cross hairs. However, much as Europeans wish to deny the harsh reality, because of proximity and large and growing Muslim populations, it is Western Europe that is on the frontline.
Islamist Iran is developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems while the West fiddles. Joint British/French/German diplomacy achieved its principal aim of preventing the US from using force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, and gave the mullahs time. In Iran and the Bomb: The Abdication of International Responsibility former French Atomic Energy Commission strategic studies director Thérèse Delpech takes Europe and America to task. However where everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible. America must lead, and if necessary to act unilaterally, to prevent Iran from obtaining atomic arms. Notwithstanding prior tough rhetoric and Norman Podhoretz’s wishful thinking to the contrary, Bush has abandoned any willingness he once might have had to destroy the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program.
While train bombings in London, Madrid and Mumbai are hard to ignore, the West turns a blind eye to the ideological front.
In any cocktail conversation, it is de rigueur for Americans and Europeans alike to note a majority Muslims are moderate. But, Ayaan Hirsi Ali cautions there is no moderate Islam. There is only Islam. There are “passive” Muslims who simply want to live their lives. Committed Islamists are ascendant and much of the rest of the Muslim world gives tacit support. In WW2 most Germans were not committed Nazis and in the Cold War (Podhoretz’s WW3) most inhabitants of the Soviet Union were not die-hard Bolsheviks.
It is also commonplace to avoid addressing the threat radical Islam poses by a proforma statement that other great faiths such as Christianity have a comparable propensity for violence and intolerance. While men have waged war in the name of Christianity, core Christian doctrine does not exhort violence or intolerance and embraces reason. In Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, drawing on the bible, the Koran and the Hadiths, Robert Spencer comprehensively documents that in contrast with Christianity, Muslims who advocate violence are on solid doctrinal ground.
But because we do not want it to be so, we ignore the ideological source of Islamic violence.
After Iraq was liberated from Saddam Hussein’s despotism and Afghanistan from the Taliban, both implemented new constitutions subordinate to Islamic law, which is incompatible with open, liberal, civil society.
Wahhabi Saudis fund mosques across Europe and North America inculcating millions in an ideology antithetical to liberal society and modernity. According the Stephen Schwartz a whopping eighty percent of mosques in the United States are under Wahhabi control.
And as the West ignores the immense ideological chasm between the West and the Crescent, so it avoids serious immigration policy.
No society in history has ever successfully assimilated large number of Muslims. Tens of millions culturally distinct Muslims increasingly adhering to an all-encompassing totalitarian ideology live inside Europe’s gates.
For France, Holland, the U.K., Spain or Italy to believe it will be the first, particularly when the dominant culture has so little confidence in itself, is naive and recklessly dangerous.
Bit by bit Europe is ceding to Islamic law and practice.
Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutchman of Moroccan origin who murdered Theo van Gogh in the name of his faith, can vote from prison. Meanwhile, Dutch children cannot display the Dutch flag on their backpacks for fear of offenidng Muslim immigrants. The world has gone topsy turvy.
Those who bombed London in 2005 grew up in Britain, not Waziristan or Saudi Arabia.
Ignoring the civilizational divide and existential threat to the West’s way of life is folly.
I am afraid it's AQ agenda and Nasrallah's
Iran is a threat so long she has a concrete agenda : becoming the incontournable state of the ME, that's also what fear the arab countries, especially the Saudi, that push the US and their alliees to envisage their Wahabi war against the Shia.
a guess, we should leave them to resolve themselves their antagonism ; a bet, Saudi will loose.
remains the main problem, what about Oil ? got to rely only on russian approvisionnements, inenvisageable !
[i]we should leave them to resolve themselves their antagonism ; a bet, Saudi will loose.[/i]
So much passivity, so much worry, and so little engagement...
yeah, I have seen yours, mainly mouthy though indispensable Saudi, impressionant and seductive Iranians :lol:
How can it be World War IV? Did I blink and miss World War III?
In Norman Podhoretz' world of rhetoric, the Cold War was World War III.
I completely reject the premise of this post.
I am Christian, but I have great respect for the Islamic tradition and support interfaith dialogue. My own church has reached out to the local Muslim community and we have great discussion and now common charitable projects. I work with Muslim co-workers and clients and they share the same dreams and aspiration for their families as all Americans. The implication here that Wahhabi mosques in America represent some sort of terrorist fifth column is ridiculous. Muslims in the US are successful and integrated, they embrace American values.
I note that Pope Benedict XVI has opened dialogue with Islamic scholars, in part in response a letter sent by 138 scholars sent to Benedict last fall : [url=http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/unprecedented_plea_from_muslim_to_christian_scholars_on_eve_of_eid/] A Common Word [/url]. A Catholic-Muslim Forum is scheduled for November in Rome.
My hope is that some Muslim readers will comment, but I can understand if they choose not to.
I would caution against indulging the oversimplification that conflates Islam with Islamism, and that's coming from someone who's had a gun put to his head by a Hizballah "officer" for no reason other than entering the antiquities site that he was "guarding" or rather "shaking people down at" while there was a real guard there nonetheless.
'The implication here that Wahhabi mosques in America represent some sort of terrorist fifth column is ridiculous. Muslims in the US are successful and integrated, they embrace American values.'
Not if they are practicing Wahabi's, they don't.
Dear Sonja,
i didn't get this: do you agree with what mr. Grover wrote? As far as i can see it, you've just copied his article without commenting.
To be clear: What he says seems to be mainly: Muslims are attacking "the West" and "the West" isn't taking the liberty of defending itself (by obliterating their enemies.. ). This is a very unrealistic view and does by no means represent reality.
Please clarify if you subscribe to this view. I think it's a trivial fact, that of course there are bad and good Muslims (as well as from other religions). It's also a given, that some Muslims let their emotion (for "the Palestinian child" or "Iraq" or in support "of our faith") lead them to atrocious acts. The same goes for Westerners who fight to "export Democracy" or kill to "liberate" some people or torture to "retaliate".. What's the difference between a US soldier torturing "Murat Kurnaz"-alikes or bombing an Afghan or Iraqi village and one of the Muslims who blew up a building full of civilians? Believe me, every one of them thought he was fighting and killing for a just cause.
And then there are some who fight and kill for pure self-interest, as is also the case in "the West" - i think i don't have to prove that.. These have divorced their actions from any try to moral justification.
Furthermore, the "just cause" for Mr. Grover seems to be disarming another land and for this cause he seems to see moral legislation to murder thousands or millions of human beings (as has been done to Iraqis). This is not different from a Bin Laden saying that to achieve a political or military aim, he is justified to kill civilians in New York. Believe it or not, Iraqi and Afghani civilians are worth as much as American civilians and they mourn the same way.
Of course such an ideology as the one of Mr. Grover doesn't function without the stark image of the supposed or portrayed foe. In this case it's Muslims, but actually it could easily be any other group. He quotes willing writers such as Hirsi Ali (Magaan), regardless of her opportunistically lying about her own history! She basically claims that all true Muslims follow in Bin Ladens foot steps (and she's not the only one repeating this without giving any hint to a proof). This is a theory that has been portrayed by many islamophobes in the last few years. It is totally wrong and to prove it, you'd just have to see the many faithful and active Muslims around the world. Go to a mosque in your neighborhood and communicate with those who watch over and carry the mosque and see for yourself.
The difference between murdering and non-murdering Muslims (to be rather simplistic) doesn't have anything to do with the religion itself. The difference is that there are true and sincere Muslims, who acknowledge that god commanded us to be good to all creatures and to respect a life even if it is fading or faded away (see below) and there are those who channel their hatred and their anger through their religiosity - or rather through the different religiosity of the receiver of their hate. But yet again, there are those persons who channel their hatred through the difference in color, religion, nationality or monetary status. This behavior is not bound to Muslims.
I'm a Muslim and i can assure you, that the hatred and the wishing (or doing) of bad things to others can never be part of this religion. The tradition of our prophet was such, that he respected all people regardless of their religion. One day a funeral of a Jewish man passed by the prophet and his companions. He stood up to honor the dead body. When his companions asked him why did that and that this was a Jew, he asked in astonishment: "It was a human soul that passed us and it deserves the honor, that god gave to it." This is only one of many episodes that show the humane values of Islamic tradition.
To end, I can only suggest to you not to fall for those who want to set the peoples of this world on collision course. They exist as Muslims and Non-Muslims and they have in union that they justify taking the life of another human being "for the good cause".
Muslims are not more violent than others. Try to look at world events from the point of view of an Iraqi or even an Iranian, Afghan, Saudi etc. and you'll notice the same text by Mr. Grover could sound realistic if all the references of "Muslims" and "the West" were flipped.
The Muslim world has suffered unbelievably by the attacks of Western states and it is really very easy for a Muslim to hate the US, Israel, Great Britain or France. But in any case it would be a hatred equal to yours or that of Mr Grover.
regards.
"The Muslim world has suffered unbelievably by the attacks of Western states and it is really very easy for a Muslim to hate the US, Israel, Great Britain or France. But in any case it would be a hatred equal to yours or that of Mr Grover. "
I have been aware that the muslim world had also imperialistic claims on Andalucia and Europe lately, Omar, I don't want to bring more oil on the fire, but the hate has been more in exposition on the muslim side there
"imperialistic claims on Andalucia and Europe"
Really? Who did claim what and when? And how did they express this claim? Did any Muslim state invade Spain or any other European country? No they didn't. The fact of the matter is, that imperialistic or self-righteous Muslims are bound to speech-giving while imperialistically inclined Americans (for example) express themselves via think-tanks and media outlets and do actually lead their country to invade other countries (say: Coulter, papa bear and others and in succession people like Wolfowitz up to presidential candidates like H. Clinton ("obliterate Iran") and McCain ("bomb iran")).
I don't want to say, that those Muslims - given the same military strength - would stop from doing the same thing - and some even try - , all I'm saying is that right now, no Muslim (country) is invading another country.
You seem to think that Muslims have a lease on hate, but i think that this is not the case at all.
And again: in my comment i didn't say that Muslims are suffering more or less. All i tried to do is to open the view for the viewpoint of the Muslim on the other side of the equation.
The question "Are Muslims intrinsically violent?" is a common question asked in Europe (and i guess in the US), but the question that poses itself for Muslims in Arabic states is: "Can we trust the placidity of the West?"
To be clear: The question on the Western side comes from an experience with Muslims blowing up buildings, airplanes and trains. The question on the Muslim side comes from an experience with Westerners bombing whole cities or countries, torturing and humiliating human beings and aiding ruthless dictators who exert their own trade of those treatments on their own citizens..
i hope this helps.
I am afraid, yes
ever surfed on berber sites ?
Being an Arab Christian, I don't buy any of this "oppressed Muslims" nonsense. You will never meet a more uniformly self-aggrandizing and self-pitying group of people who think the world owes them something - ones who will be living in a state of self-constructed chaos of mediocrity, noise, and greed in nearly any given city or village, and remain convinced of their superiorty over others... even superior people who have running water, functioning hospitals, and actually respect traffic lights, or don't think that the red light stopping them is somehow "personal".
It's no wonder that most of the ones with any brains leave for the Americas.
To Omar and David an everybody else,
thanks for all your thoughtful comments. It is in order to generate such discussion that Atlantic Review sometimes links to provocative articles on the web. We always try to make clear what part of our posts reflect our personal opinion (sometimes we don't comment personally at all) and what parts of the post are quoted from other people's articles. If that wasn't clear in my case, I apologize. Also, I have added some clarification as far as the cross-posting with Blogactiv is concerned.
I am glad you both pointed out that there are good and bad people as well as good and bad deeds for various reasons among Muslims as well as people of other faiths. (As are among non-believers, I might add.) I especially liked your example, Omar, of the prophet Mohammed who paid the same respect to a Jewish person as to any Muslim person.
And I totally agree with both of you that it is just as unfair as it is unwise to condemn one or the other religion in favor of, for example, one's own.
Personally, I am convinced that in order for people of different or no faiths)to live together in one world peacefully, it is necessary to a) grant the same religious freedom to people of every faith as well as non-believers in every society on the planet b) pay the same respect to all human beings on the basis of commom human rights; there must not be any difference between the respect we pay a person depending on their nationality, religion, race, gender, physical or mental abilities et cetera. c)on necessary (but not at all sufficient) step towards the end is a strict separation of religion and politics.
Contact Us
ar-team AT atlanticreview.org
We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions.
Subscribe and Follow
You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW,
a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis.
More about us.
Follow Atlantic Review on
Facebook or on
Twitter.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter.
Sponsor
SUPPORT THIS SITE
or 
:Blogroll
Hot Topics
Afghanistan
Anti-Americanism
Economics
Iran
Iraq
Merkel
Polls
Terrorism
Click here for the full list of all topics.
