Tags
America, America 911, America vs Islam, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Miley, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Obama, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, US, War with Islam, War with Muslims
I was walking through an underpass the other day when I noticed some bright yellow graffiti on the sloping wall above me. It was an unidentifiable but medieval-looking shield, above which the ferocious statement (in English) ‘Death to Islam!’ was scrawled in capital letters.
Walking on, I wondered whether the shield was some sort of Crusader symbol, or perhaps a coat of arms connected to the Reconquista (I am still in Spain). The former is not unusual in counter-jihad society, where veneration of the Knights Templar and Teutonic Order has long been popular.
I don’t personally venerate the Crusaders. They were brutal anti-Semites and religious fanatics. They killed without mercy or planning, and the mission with which they charged themselves was little different to the Jihadism of today.
And the crusader worship so prevalent in Counter-Jihad circles seems to me generally wide of the mark. I don’t want a war with Islam. I want Islam out of the West and a segregation of cultures enforced by a large, well-organised transnational military. I don’t much care if Indonesians or Sudanese people want to practise their faith. I don’t think that’s part of the West’s concern.
Whilst an entity like ISIS, which has declared war on the civilised world, must be vanquished from the air as soon as possible, the existence of the Islamic religion itself is not something we can do much about. ‘Death to Islam’ consequently has no meaning for me, unless it is followed with the limiting clause “…in the West.”
One of the greatest myths in modern political discourse holds that Islam (and Muslims) are ‘weak’. Designed to manipulate opinion, the idea is typically advanced alongside the observation that the West is strong, thus making for an asymmetry of power conducive to a view of Muslims as the ‘underdog’.
We don’t have to place much stress on the imagination to bunk that concept. Simply think of the political, economic and military capabilities of 1.6 Billion people acting for a common goal. Think of a civilisation which together controls 70% of the world’s oil supply. Think of the combined might of the Turkish, Egyptian, Iranian, Algerian, Moroccan, Saudi, Pakistani and Indonesian militaries. Think of the disruption that would be caused if the Muslims of Europe and India violently turned on their host societies.
No, Muslims are not weak, and nor is the Muslim world. It is formidably powerful and a condition of total war between Islam and the West would plunge both coalitions into bloody oblivion.
This is why, in reversing the Islamic conquest of Europe, we have to be careful not to redevelop a crusader mind-set. We would be fools to try to defeat the Muslim world entirely. Even if it were possible, we’d gain little from doing so.
Let us stress instead the benefits of a peaceful separation of Islam and the West. A peace that would allow for both cultures to develop as they wish.
D, LDN.
Defend the Modern World 
Robert Spencer views the Crusades as having been mainly defensive and a reaction to Islamic conquest:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games-muslims-play.htm#crusades
LikeLike
Bill Warner has a great graphic representation of the Crusades compared to Jihad. The Crusades were a nobly moral endeabour in their Jus ad Bellum, and only occasionally immoral in their execution.
LikeLike
Maybe, but an awful lot of Jews were killed for no good reason during that time.
LikeLike
They still seem rather fanatical and un-European to me.
LikeLike
Jews were seen as enemies along with Muslims.
LikeLike
“I don’t personally venerate the Crusaders.”
Those were savage times, life was short and brutal. Without their struggle Islam might have advanced further and our problems been larger today. Appreciating their role in history doesn’t mean we have to copy their actions in the modern world, and nor should we.
George W Bush and the neo-cons might have had a crusader mindset when they launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but I think they genuinely also believed that they could install democracy in the region and that it would in the long run lead to a more peaceful future. Their dismal failure to appreciate the size of the task, and the premature withdrawal of Obama, are what have led to the chaos we see today.
If IS is defeated, what then? I cannot see how this conflict can be resolved, it seems that it will just continue at least for a very long time. The West is not likely to send ground troops back in so I just cannot see the way forward. Might it be better to allow a Sunni state to emerge in the region, splitting Iraq and Syria. Who are we to say who its leadership should be? You say IS have declared war on the West but isn’t the Iranian position similar? As long as they are not actually attacking states that we are allied to, what point is there in fighting them? Once they have gained power, they will have a vested interest in peace and maybe will calm down. There is perhaps a danger that this new state would merge with Hamas and declare all out war on Israel however. All our recent interventions in the Middle East and North Africa seem to just have made matters worse.
The argument that we just simply cant sit and watch as Christians and others are persecuted in Islamic countries does seem to lend itself to the interventionist mindset. But, since this persecution is happening in a great many places we simply cant intervene militarily everywhere. Perhaps separation is the best way forward, as you say. Previous interventions have only increased the tide of refugees coming our way.
Should we continue to offer asylum to non-Muslim and ex-Muslim refugees? Even this is problematic because you know what, refugees could simply lie to gain entry! The only way this could work is if we also take the sort of line that liberty gb are proposing towards Islam. Counter-jihad arguments are no where near breaking through into the mainstream media yet, this will have to happen before there will even be a chance of stemming the tide of Islam.
LikeLike
We must take in some Christians. It’s only right. If we fail to do so, Africans (in particular) will get the impression that only Islam looks out for its own.
LikeLike
In the US, we aren’t taking on any E Euro (Ukraine) refugees or W Euro immigrants, esp Jews. Same shit, different flies – re: FDR and Chamberlain in the time leading up to WWII.
LikeLike