lennart
10-03-04, 21:26
A take on Islam steers US into the abyss
by Abid Ullah Jan
(Tuesday 09 March 2004)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The pragmatics wonder if Bernard Lewis would live enough to see the Zionists, whom he served for so long, replace the arrogant American administrators, whom he pushed into digging America’s grave in the Middle East."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 88-years old author of 20 books on Islam, Bernard Lewis, is a classic example of how intellectual horror of such individuals lead to physical horror of the kind we witness around the world today.
Bernard Lewis often proudly tells his audience about an insignificant encounter he once had in Jordan.
The insignificant encounter, however, becomes significant when Western public’s limited understanding of Islam is viewed in the context of their lead opinion-maker’s convoluted view about Muslims and Islam.
Lewis says one of his Arab friends argued: “We have time, we can wait. We got rid of the Crusaders. We got rid of the Turks. We'll get rid of the Jews.”
Hearing this claim," Mr. Lewis says, he shot back, "Excuse me, but you've got your history wrong. The Turks got rid of the Crusaders. The British got rid of the Turks. The Jews got rid of the British. I wonder who is coming here next."
Turks and Arabs are irrelevant. What is undeniable is that Muslims got rid of the crusades. Period. On the other hand, the British not only got rid of Turks but also helped the whole Europe got rid of the centuries old Jewish problem.[1]
There is no need for Mr. Lewis to wonder who is coming next to replace America in the Middle East. It is the Zionists who did not get rid of British but will definitely get rid of America. Muslims will then get rid of them to prove the Jordanian friend of Mr. Lewis right in his observation.
Lewis and company use such sarcasm to underscore a serious point. Most Islamic countries have failed miserably at “modernizing” their societies, they contend, beckoning outsiders – this time, Americans – to intervene.
The Zionist inspired Lewis-doctrine of calling for a U.S. military invasion to reform Muslims has helped define the bloodiest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50 years. The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is the initial phase of this doctrine in operation. It means the Zionists are more than half way through their agenda of replacing the US as a Ruling State.
In the last decade of 20th century, the Zionists changed quick gears to take the US out of its doctrine-of-containment mode. Threat from Islam under many different labels replaced Moscow as the global foe. And now America, having replaced British as the Ruling State and outlasted the Soviets to become the sole superpower, no longer seeks to contain but to confront, defeat and transform the world of Islam.
The US failure in remolding Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the Mideast is the writing on the wall. In the coming years, the US will remain bold and assertive as long as it believes it can transform lives and culture of a people through force. Persistent losses and embarrassing failure of the baseless theories will gradually make the US inward, defensive, cut off and replaced by Israel in the end.
We are in the initial phase of moving towards this end. According to Peter Waldman of Wall Street Journal, “as mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power.”[2]
Lewis Doctrine of transforming a way of life of more than one billion people in the name of fostering democracy seems wise and imperative in his books alone. In reality, it is the beginning of re-colonisation of the Muslim world and the fall of the US power on the pattern of its predecessor, the United Kingdom.
It also sounds nice that the US has adopted this course only to be able to blunt terrorism and stabilize the Middle East. Instead, it has already sparked a much wider resistance — called terrorism. At an Al-Jazeera poll, 56 percent respondents clicked a resounding “no” to the question: “Should Arab countries yield to US reform plans?”[3]
Instead of engaging in honest soul-searching and identifying the enemies within, the US administration was led to holding Muslims responsible for 9/11 soon after the attacks occurred. Muslims’ “misunderstanding” of the US and Islamic threat was the answer to every question. “The only question left unanswered was how to frame the enemy,” says David Frum, who was a speechwriter for President Bush.[4]
At this critical juncture, Lewis told White House staffers, military aides and staff members of the National Security Council in a special meeting that anti-Americanism stemmed from Muslims’ “own inadequacies, not America's.” Frum also recalls Lewis’s private meeting with national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney.
The fallacy of this doctrine is not limited only to closing eyes to the US injustice, failures and the enemies within. It leads a long way to the dangerous miscalculation that even the most aggressive enemy wouldn't risk its own demise by provoking war with a powerful U.S. This doctrine blinds the Americans to the reality that the administration’s Zionists sponsored advisors are, in fact, the grave diggers for the seemingly invincible U.S. With advisors like these, the US needs no enemies.
The fallacy deepens with the fact that such insane doctrines envision not a clash of interests or even ideology, but of cultures, values and ways of life. The reason: surpassing the already well under-control-U.S. is not a problem for the Zionists. Doing the same to the divided, humiliated and mostly occupied Muslim world is a problem as long as its values, principles and identity is not substantially diluted.
As a result, exploiting weaknesses of the power wielders in Washington, the spokespersons for Zionists put only two choices before them: "Get tough or get out" of the Muslim world, knowing that the super ego of the the super tyrants would not let them admit their crimes and do the necessary course correction.
Mentality of these promoters of war can be judged from the fact that besides serving as intelligence officer for the British Empire, Bernard Lewis inherited some historic grudges before becoming a pawn in the grand Zionist game. He strongly believes that, notwithstanding the US excesses over the last century, Muslims hate the West only because the Ottomans failed for the second time to sack Christian Vienna in 1683.
Mr. Lewis is also the father of the “clash of civilisation” theory which he described in a 1990 essay called "The Roots of Muslim Rage." According to Lewis, Muslims do not feel cheated due to undeniable realities, such as the US out-right support to Israeli aggression, occupation and the worst kind of human rights violations. All Muslims are portrayed to hate the West as a whole for 300 years only because the Christian civilization has overshadowed them militarily, economically and culturally.[5] So, there is no need for a policy change to reverse or at least bring an end to the continuing U.S. hypocrisy, double standards and injustice.
Friedman, Pipes, Perle and many hypocrites among Muslims in the name of “moderates”[6] regurgitate the same convoluted theory that Muslims hate US because they are “not rich, not strong and not successful.”
The reality is that Christians and Muslims make only 55 per cent of the world population.[7] Even not all the 33 percent Christians are rich, strong and successful. If poverty, weakness and failure are the criteria for hating the US, more than 90 percent of the world population is thus supposed to hate the US. The reason is clear. Far less than 10 per cent of the world population belongs to the corporate world of super tyrants and Zionist political-entrepreneurs.
What hurts members of this league of hypocrites, in Bernard Lewis words, is their concern: why do they [Muslims] neither fear nor respect us?" Only the most naïve would believe Lewis’s logic that instilling respect or at least fear through force is essential for America's security.
According to Wall Street Journal, only eight days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Lewis and his friend, Ahmad Chalabi argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future.
This fact alone is enough to show the years of planning, the scope of links, and creation of the most suitable moments for proposing the core ideas in this great Zionist game. Imagine, the Americans are still busy counting their dead and they have yet to focus on the real culprits of the 9/11, when Lewis — who is “close to government circles in Israel” (according to the Wall Street Journal) — goes to underline the need for Iraq’s occupation to their leader. Iraq is a country that has yet to be credibly linked with 9/11.
It shows that Bernard Lewis has not helped the world understand the complexity of the world of Islam. As a confidant of successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel Sharon, he simply worked as a tool for justifying Israeli crimes and occupations by and for Israel.
Mr. Wolfowitz has now signalled that the US administration accepted Mr. Lewis's prescription for the Muslim world of “losers, helpless and enraged.” Ilan Pappe of Haifa University rightly argued that Mr. Lewis's view that political cultures can be remade through force contributed to Israel's decision to invade Lebanon in 1982.
It took Israel 18 years to abandon that strategy. Unfortunately, the US does not have that luxury at its disposal. Operating under the same assumption on a much wider scale, the US will fail far miserably than Israel in Lebanon.
As the US rose to touch the limits of its power, hundreds of thousands lost their lives as a result of its illegal sanctions and wars for transforming them in its own image. Millions more are destined to suffer as a result of the impending great fall of the final Titan.
The British got rid of the Turks and the Jews. The US replaced the British. Bernard Lewis wonders who is coming next. The pragmatics, however, wonder if Lewis would live enough to see the Zionists, whom he served for so long, replace the arrogant American administrators, whom he pushed into digging America’s grave in the Middle East.
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/5459
Lewis ideologie is de basis van het huidige Amerikaanse beleid, maar ook het uitgangspunt van het zogenaamde "integratiedebat". De rascisten zijn aan het winnen :(
Laat het meteen duidelijk zijn juist vanwege deze neonazi-ideologie en de onwil van Nederlandse intellectuelen om deze neonazi ideologie tegen te spreken, de Jihad recruiters het uiterst makkelijk hebben om nieuwe slachtoffers te vinden.
by Abid Ullah Jan
(Tuesday 09 March 2004)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The pragmatics wonder if Bernard Lewis would live enough to see the Zionists, whom he served for so long, replace the arrogant American administrators, whom he pushed into digging America’s grave in the Middle East."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 88-years old author of 20 books on Islam, Bernard Lewis, is a classic example of how intellectual horror of such individuals lead to physical horror of the kind we witness around the world today.
Bernard Lewis often proudly tells his audience about an insignificant encounter he once had in Jordan.
The insignificant encounter, however, becomes significant when Western public’s limited understanding of Islam is viewed in the context of their lead opinion-maker’s convoluted view about Muslims and Islam.
Lewis says one of his Arab friends argued: “We have time, we can wait. We got rid of the Crusaders. We got rid of the Turks. We'll get rid of the Jews.”
Hearing this claim," Mr. Lewis says, he shot back, "Excuse me, but you've got your history wrong. The Turks got rid of the Crusaders. The British got rid of the Turks. The Jews got rid of the British. I wonder who is coming here next."
Turks and Arabs are irrelevant. What is undeniable is that Muslims got rid of the crusades. Period. On the other hand, the British not only got rid of Turks but also helped the whole Europe got rid of the centuries old Jewish problem.[1]
There is no need for Mr. Lewis to wonder who is coming next to replace America in the Middle East. It is the Zionists who did not get rid of British but will definitely get rid of America. Muslims will then get rid of them to prove the Jordanian friend of Mr. Lewis right in his observation.
Lewis and company use such sarcasm to underscore a serious point. Most Islamic countries have failed miserably at “modernizing” their societies, they contend, beckoning outsiders – this time, Americans – to intervene.
The Zionist inspired Lewis-doctrine of calling for a U.S. military invasion to reform Muslims has helped define the bloodiest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50 years. The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is the initial phase of this doctrine in operation. It means the Zionists are more than half way through their agenda of replacing the US as a Ruling State.
In the last decade of 20th century, the Zionists changed quick gears to take the US out of its doctrine-of-containment mode. Threat from Islam under many different labels replaced Moscow as the global foe. And now America, having replaced British as the Ruling State and outlasted the Soviets to become the sole superpower, no longer seeks to contain but to confront, defeat and transform the world of Islam.
The US failure in remolding Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the Mideast is the writing on the wall. In the coming years, the US will remain bold and assertive as long as it believes it can transform lives and culture of a people through force. Persistent losses and embarrassing failure of the baseless theories will gradually make the US inward, defensive, cut off and replaced by Israel in the end.
We are in the initial phase of moving towards this end. According to Peter Waldman of Wall Street Journal, “as mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power.”[2]
Lewis Doctrine of transforming a way of life of more than one billion people in the name of fostering democracy seems wise and imperative in his books alone. In reality, it is the beginning of re-colonisation of the Muslim world and the fall of the US power on the pattern of its predecessor, the United Kingdom.
It also sounds nice that the US has adopted this course only to be able to blunt terrorism and stabilize the Middle East. Instead, it has already sparked a much wider resistance — called terrorism. At an Al-Jazeera poll, 56 percent respondents clicked a resounding “no” to the question: “Should Arab countries yield to US reform plans?”[3]
Instead of engaging in honest soul-searching and identifying the enemies within, the US administration was led to holding Muslims responsible for 9/11 soon after the attacks occurred. Muslims’ “misunderstanding” of the US and Islamic threat was the answer to every question. “The only question left unanswered was how to frame the enemy,” says David Frum, who was a speechwriter for President Bush.[4]
At this critical juncture, Lewis told White House staffers, military aides and staff members of the National Security Council in a special meeting that anti-Americanism stemmed from Muslims’ “own inadequacies, not America's.” Frum also recalls Lewis’s private meeting with national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney.
The fallacy of this doctrine is not limited only to closing eyes to the US injustice, failures and the enemies within. It leads a long way to the dangerous miscalculation that even the most aggressive enemy wouldn't risk its own demise by provoking war with a powerful U.S. This doctrine blinds the Americans to the reality that the administration’s Zionists sponsored advisors are, in fact, the grave diggers for the seemingly invincible U.S. With advisors like these, the US needs no enemies.
The fallacy deepens with the fact that such insane doctrines envision not a clash of interests or even ideology, but of cultures, values and ways of life. The reason: surpassing the already well under-control-U.S. is not a problem for the Zionists. Doing the same to the divided, humiliated and mostly occupied Muslim world is a problem as long as its values, principles and identity is not substantially diluted.
As a result, exploiting weaknesses of the power wielders in Washington, the spokespersons for Zionists put only two choices before them: "Get tough or get out" of the Muslim world, knowing that the super ego of the the super tyrants would not let them admit their crimes and do the necessary course correction.
Mentality of these promoters of war can be judged from the fact that besides serving as intelligence officer for the British Empire, Bernard Lewis inherited some historic grudges before becoming a pawn in the grand Zionist game. He strongly believes that, notwithstanding the US excesses over the last century, Muslims hate the West only because the Ottomans failed for the second time to sack Christian Vienna in 1683.
Mr. Lewis is also the father of the “clash of civilisation” theory which he described in a 1990 essay called "The Roots of Muslim Rage." According to Lewis, Muslims do not feel cheated due to undeniable realities, such as the US out-right support to Israeli aggression, occupation and the worst kind of human rights violations. All Muslims are portrayed to hate the West as a whole for 300 years only because the Christian civilization has overshadowed them militarily, economically and culturally.[5] So, there is no need for a policy change to reverse or at least bring an end to the continuing U.S. hypocrisy, double standards and injustice.
Friedman, Pipes, Perle and many hypocrites among Muslims in the name of “moderates”[6] regurgitate the same convoluted theory that Muslims hate US because they are “not rich, not strong and not successful.”
The reality is that Christians and Muslims make only 55 per cent of the world population.[7] Even not all the 33 percent Christians are rich, strong and successful. If poverty, weakness and failure are the criteria for hating the US, more than 90 percent of the world population is thus supposed to hate the US. The reason is clear. Far less than 10 per cent of the world population belongs to the corporate world of super tyrants and Zionist political-entrepreneurs.
What hurts members of this league of hypocrites, in Bernard Lewis words, is their concern: why do they [Muslims] neither fear nor respect us?" Only the most naïve would believe Lewis’s logic that instilling respect or at least fear through force is essential for America's security.
According to Wall Street Journal, only eight days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Lewis and his friend, Ahmad Chalabi argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future.
This fact alone is enough to show the years of planning, the scope of links, and creation of the most suitable moments for proposing the core ideas in this great Zionist game. Imagine, the Americans are still busy counting their dead and they have yet to focus on the real culprits of the 9/11, when Lewis — who is “close to government circles in Israel” (according to the Wall Street Journal) — goes to underline the need for Iraq’s occupation to their leader. Iraq is a country that has yet to be credibly linked with 9/11.
It shows that Bernard Lewis has not helped the world understand the complexity of the world of Islam. As a confidant of successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel Sharon, he simply worked as a tool for justifying Israeli crimes and occupations by and for Israel.
Mr. Wolfowitz has now signalled that the US administration accepted Mr. Lewis's prescription for the Muslim world of “losers, helpless and enraged.” Ilan Pappe of Haifa University rightly argued that Mr. Lewis's view that political cultures can be remade through force contributed to Israel's decision to invade Lebanon in 1982.
It took Israel 18 years to abandon that strategy. Unfortunately, the US does not have that luxury at its disposal. Operating under the same assumption on a much wider scale, the US will fail far miserably than Israel in Lebanon.
As the US rose to touch the limits of its power, hundreds of thousands lost their lives as a result of its illegal sanctions and wars for transforming them in its own image. Millions more are destined to suffer as a result of the impending great fall of the final Titan.
The British got rid of the Turks and the Jews. The US replaced the British. Bernard Lewis wonders who is coming next. The pragmatics, however, wonder if Lewis would live enough to see the Zionists, whom he served for so long, replace the arrogant American administrators, whom he pushed into digging America’s grave in the Middle East.
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/5459
Lewis ideologie is de basis van het huidige Amerikaanse beleid, maar ook het uitgangspunt van het zogenaamde "integratiedebat". De rascisten zijn aan het winnen :(
Laat het meteen duidelijk zijn juist vanwege deze neonazi-ideologie en de onwil van Nederlandse intellectuelen om deze neonazi ideologie tegen te spreken, de Jihad recruiters het uiterst makkelijk hebben om nieuwe slachtoffers te vinden.