Genocidewatch joka on varsin puolueeton kansanmurhien tutkimusinstituutti, totesi syyskuussa:
"Western nations are not merely ignoring Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East, they are actively supporting it by sponsoring “moderate” rebels who in reality are as “radical” and anti-Western as the Islamic State."
Eli maltillisista puhuminen on opportunistista politiikkaa. Ei Lähi-Idässä juurikaan ole mitään maltillisia ryhmiä, joilla olisi laaja kannatus.
Samanlaista poliittista opportunismia on Lännen nyt liittoutua Putinin kanssa ISIS:iä vastaan. Venäjä miehittää useiden eurooppalaisten valtioiden aluetta ja käy Suomeakin kohtaan ilmeistä informaatiosotaa. Ranskan kaksi huippupoliitikkoa Le Pen ja Sarkozy ovat jopa tunnustaneet Krimin miehityksen. Itse kannatan EU:n osallistumista ISIS:in vastaiseen koalitioon lähinnä vain siksi, että positiivinen vastaus Ranskan apupyyntöön vahvistaa EU:n turvatakuujärjestelmää Suomen osalta. Aina kuitenkin pitää pitää mielessä että Venäjä ei ole liittolainen vaan vihollinen.
Kolmas esimerkki on ns. progressiivisten opportunismi. Britannian työväenpuolueen vasemmansiiven pitkän linjan aktiivi Nick Cohen kuvaa vasemmistoliberaalissa Guardianissa "monikultturistista liberalismia" vastakohtana klassinen liberalismi:
"Progressives make excuses for reactionary movements they would describe as fascist in other circumstances...
Against traditional liberalism stands multicultural liberalism, which the majority of people who call themselves “progressives” believe. An unimprovable example of how it turns old certainties on their heads came two days before the Paris massacres.
The Muslim Council of Britain demanded a blasphemy law because “Muslim communities need to be able to respond to accusations [against] Muslims, or against the Prophet, in a more effective way”. The council’s guest, Keith Vaz, appeared to agree. It is symptomatic of our time that Vaz is not a Tory traditionalist who thinks it wrong for impious critics to mock the beliefs of the faithful, but a Labour politician. In general today, the left rather than the right, multicultural liberals rather than Tories, are the most likely to defend religious conservatism."
Neljäntenä esimerkkinä mainittakoon vihreiden Heidi Hautala, joka totesi;
"Tiedämme myös, että uskonnolla ei ole tämän terrorin kanssa mitään tekemistä."
Tämä ei vakuuta ainakaan liberaalin Huntington Post-lehden kolumnisti Roy Abbasia:
ISIS, we're told, "has nothing to do with Islam." Even a cursory examination of the history and literature of Islam, Quran and Hadith could easily debunk this above claim as preposterous and could irrefutably establish the fact that not only is ISIS inspired from the Islamic concept of the Caliphate but is also heavily influenced by the radical Islamic jurisprudence of the 13th century Scholar Sheikh Taqi ibn Taymiyyah and later the 18th century scholar Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab.
ISIS or any other terror group e.g. Al Qaeda are not relentlessly fighting against the West because of some plethora of "legitimate grievances of Muslims due to blunders of American foreign policy" as Robert Fisk, Stop the War Coalition and Noam Chomsky would like many to believe. If grievances and atrocities are considered to be the "reasons" behind ISIS attacks, then by this logic all Indians living in the United Kingdom would be retaliating to avenge the sufferings of their ancestors faced during the British Colonialism. Bangladeshis would carry out attacks against Pakistan since they were once ruthlessly persecuted by them. Jews would be retaliating against Austria, Germany, Hungary and Romania as these countries were among the main perpetrators of the Holocaust. Vietnam would attack the United States for the disaster caused by Agent Orange and Japanese would retaliate against the U.S for the colossal humanitarian tragedy caused by the Hiroshima bombings and Chinese against Japanese for the dreadful 1937 Nanking Massacre.
"Progressives make excuses for reactionary movements they would describe as fascist in other circumstances...
Against traditional liberalism stands multicultural liberalism, which the majority of people who call themselves “progressives” believe. An unimprovable example of how it turns old certainties on their heads came two days before the Paris massacres.
The Muslim Council of Britain demanded a blasphemy law because “Muslim communities need to be able to respond to accusations [against] Muslims, or against the Prophet, in a more effective way”. The council’s guest, Keith Vaz, appeared to agree. It is symptomatic of our time that Vaz is not a Tory traditionalist who thinks it wrong for impious critics to mock the beliefs of the faithful, but a Labour politician. In general today, the left rather than the right, multicultural liberals rather than Tories, are the most likely to defend religious conservatism."
Neljäntenä esimerkkinä mainittakoon vihreiden Heidi Hautala, joka totesi;
"Tiedämme myös, että uskonnolla ei ole tämän terrorin kanssa mitään tekemistä."
Tämä ei vakuuta ainakaan liberaalin Huntington Post-lehden kolumnisti Roy Abbasia:
ISIS, we're told, "has nothing to do with Islam." Even a cursory examination of the history and literature of Islam, Quran and Hadith could easily debunk this above claim as preposterous and could irrefutably establish the fact that not only is ISIS inspired from the Islamic concept of the Caliphate but is also heavily influenced by the radical Islamic jurisprudence of the 13th century Scholar Sheikh Taqi ibn Taymiyyah and later the 18th century scholar Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab.
ISIS or any other terror group e.g. Al Qaeda are not relentlessly fighting against the West because of some plethora of "legitimate grievances of Muslims due to blunders of American foreign policy" as Robert Fisk, Stop the War Coalition and Noam Chomsky would like many to believe. If grievances and atrocities are considered to be the "reasons" behind ISIS attacks, then by this logic all Indians living in the United Kingdom would be retaliating to avenge the sufferings of their ancestors faced during the British Colonialism. Bangladeshis would carry out attacks against Pakistan since they were once ruthlessly persecuted by them. Jews would be retaliating against Austria, Germany, Hungary and Romania as these countries were among the main perpetrators of the Holocaust. Vietnam would attack the United States for the disaster caused by Agent Orange and Japanese would retaliate against the U.S for the colossal humanitarian tragedy caused by the Hiroshima bombings and Chinese against Japanese for the dreadful 1937 Nanking Massacre.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti