Could the author be suffering from Mad Goat Disease?
Posted on 01/11/2004 10:45:09 AM PST by SJackson
The Americans have Daniel Pipe, the Dutch had Pim Fortuyn, the French have Brigit Bardot, the Italians have Oriana Fallaci, and the British have Robert Kilroy-Silk. They are all anti-Islamic bigots, zealots, extremists and fanatics, driven by their intense hatred and racism. The words of such people have contributed towards the legitimisation of the violence inflicted in place like Iraq. Furthermore, it encourages brutality amongst their soldiers, no surprise to hear the incident of an Iraqi prisoner viciously kicked to death. One can only imagine, all the other cases that do not get reported. Torture and execution has become routine in the prisons of Guantanamo Bay, Bagram and Abu Gharib. Such events resonate the era of Hitler and Mussolini.
So there is a pattern, any nation fuelled by fanaticism, racism, bigotry and extremism will inevitably inflict violence and commit genocide upon other nations. One of the earliest examples is the medieval crusade. Richard, the homosexual barbarian needlessly slaughtered thousands of Muslim prisoners, including women and children. Prior to which, the fanatical crusaders engaged in cannibalism. Why not? Since these Christian terrorists were eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood on a daily basis. The chivalrous, upright and magnanimous Salahhuddin Ayubi on recapturing Palestine did not allow such treatment of the Christian prisoners and communities in retaliation. This is an example of real “tolerance”! Even today, one can witness these Christian communities in the Fertile Crescent.
Then came the era of colonisation by the new ‘enlightened’ secular Europe. Nations were enslaved and exterminated. Aztecs, Incas, Mayas, Native Americans, Africa and the Aborigines of Australia are just few examples, and such events have no parallels in Islamic history. In the mid 20th century the fanaticism and extremism manifested in the rise of Fascism and Nazism in ‘civilised’ Europe. In a continuation of this legacy, we have the current Capitalist-Zionist-Christian axis waging new wave of brutal colonisation and subjugation. In between, Uncle Sam pillaged Vietnam, Korea, Central and South America.
Whatever the newspaper columnist Kilroy-Silk ‘thinks’ or writes, gas chambers, Nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, Agent Orange, Inquisition, Fascism and Nazism are all European inventions, has no root or connection with the Islamic civilisation. Ask a simple question, who are largest producers of these weapons, and then profit handsomely from its sale? Kilroy-Silk is right, all the Arab countries together export less then Finland and therefore could not achieve this.
Scholarly discourse between civilisations can bring fruitful result in building tolerance and mutual respect. As an example, the era of the Islamic rule in Spain. There was no Islamic Inquisition or the ritual burning of Jews and witches. Making vitriolic statements against the Islam without having the courage or the intellect to debate the subject with its proponents is not discourse, nor does it comply with the values espoused by the advocates of free society. Rather, it indicates cowardice and implicit admission of intellectual defeat. What, makes these people anti-Islamic fanatics, is simply the lack of substantiation and rationality behind their opinions.
If anyone else expressed such malicious diatribe against any other community there would have been instant restraint and gagging. If the perpetrator is a Muslim, one can by pass everything and, in Guantanamo Bay style imprison him/her indefinitely in a cage, without legal representation or charge, then wave the flag of human rights over his/her head.
Not for the first time, Robert Kilroy-Silk has made such a venomous attack. Which has exceeded well beyond the standard of the normal quota of anti-Islamic diatribe reserved for the Muslims. His one-dimensional view of the Islamic world as inherently evil, versus the angelic Anglo-Saxon civilisation that can do no wrong, makes the likes of George Bush, and General William Boynkin geniuses.
He addressed the Arabs/Muslims in the most disparaging manner. Has he ever read the Arab history and comprehend the factors, that has shaped the current situation? Unlikely, for a start, he thinks Iran is an Arab country! None of the leadership in the Arab countries reflects the will of its people. The British, the French and the US employs the services of these Bedouin Arab ‘kings’ and despots, now includes the schizophrenic clown of Libya. The last time the Arab masses expressed their voices in desiring a representative government was in Algeria. The elections were suspended. There was no outcry for democracy from the West! If the government produced is not desirable, then suppress it or just conveniently label it as a dictator, despite popular support.
Kilroy-Silk describes the war on Iraq as ‘liberation’, even though the legal pretext was finding WMD, which is conveniently avoided. If Iraq has been liberated, why is it that, Blair and Bush always addresses their soldiers in a secure military barrack, rather than the cheering crowds in the streets of Baghdad or Basra or Mosul? Did the Iraqis ask for their liberation by the bombs and bullets of the coalition forces? If so, where are they? Frankly, it is imperial arrogance for Blair and Bush to claim, as white vigilantes to know what is best for the Iraqis, even though, they neither represent them nor have they sought their opinion prior to invading their country.
He fervently taints 9/11 as if it is the beginning of human history, prior to which no society experienced such destruction. What about the atrocities that have been committed in the name of 9/11, which exceeds far greater then 3000? They are faceless, nameless, and a figure that no one is interested in, be it 30,000 or 40,000. It does not touch the conscience of the likes of Kilroy-Silk. Besides, the victims in the in the streets of Baghdad or Kabul had absolutely no connection with the architects of 9/11.
The 9/11 was not an unprovoked first strike but a retaliatory strike in response to the ongoing slaughter in Iraq and Palestine, assuming that Muslims were behind it. Muslims and non-Muslims around the world, including large section of the masses in Europe took the view that “America got what it deserves” and it was due. So, why is Kilroy-Silk shocked to see those Muslims celebrating seeing dead Americans, as many non-Muslims were also celebrating in Europe and around the world? If I were the father of Muhammad Durra (father of the 12 year old Palestinian child shot dead captured on TV) that is exactly how I would feel. Why does he expect those Muslims to feel love rather then hate for the US, after the last 50 years of oppression and subjugation in their own lands? Only a person with an irrational and a sick mind can make such proposition.
Kilroy-Silk refers to the suicide bombings as if it is a recent invention of the Muslims. They are sacrificing their lives to defend their lands. They are the occupied and not the occupiers. They are the oppressed and not the oppressors. Kilroy-Silk’s paradigm is that, the West is engaged in ‘defensive’ war, with countries that are in distant lands. Hence, the dropping of Daisy cutters, Cluster bomb, and cruise missiles does not constitute terrorism, can be excused, even though it leads to terrorising the entire nation? But any form of retaliation is simply terrorism. How convenient.
He rants about Saddam using chemical and Biological weapons, again conveniently ignores that it was his proud ancestor, Winston Churchill, who started the tradition of gassing in Iraq. Even then, can one seriously propose that the West were entirely innocent about the production, deployment, and usage of those weapons under Saddam? These types of weapons primarily exists in the US, Europe and Israel. No doubt, under the Kilroy ‘principle’ this is the sole prerogative of the civilised West.
Kilroy-Silk, calls Iran, Libya, and Syria vile regimes, not that I am a supporter of these regimes but if they are, why? Is it simply because Bush has labelled Iran as part of an axis of evil? I cannot think what these governments have done that is worse then the conduct and track record of the British and the American government.
On the subject of Economics, he refers to the American benevolence of American ‘aid’ to the Muslim countries. Really? Capitalist nation are charitable institutions? Excuse my ignorance. I thought economic ‘aid’ was fat loan with fat interests. What good is aid when there is ever-rising debt, resulting in the net flow of wealth from the poor to the rich (West)? This is no different from the televised charity donations to relieve guilt, after impoverishing the poor countries through the interests and loans.
He gloats about the asylum seekers arriving from the Islamic countries to the UK. The Muslims would not be arriving in the West, had it not been for the colonisation (economic and military), and the constant interference by imposing dictators and despots. On the issue of asylum and persecution, the Islamic societies also provided sanctuary to those persecuted in Europe during medieval times. He also forgets, how his forefathers persecuted and brutalised the Irish community for centuries. Which is easily comparable to the Nazi persecution of the Jews.
Mr Kilroy criticises the Islamic penal code with a chauvinistic undertone. Why is his harsh criticism reserved for the Muslims when the US also employs capital punishment and the majority of the British public are in favour of reintroducing it? The notion of capital punishment is not an Islamic invention. It also exists in abundance within the Judeo-Christian traditions.
Then the usual reference to Islam oppressing women, but yet Islam continues attract women from the West in droves, despite the intensity of the anti-Islamic propaganda. If Mr Kilroy-Silk is convinced about his assertion, then why does he not try to rescue the likes of the British journalist, Yvonne Ridley, who embraced Islam after being released from the captivity of the Taliban?
He vilifies the ritual Islamic slaughtering, yet he is silent on the identical process used by the Jews. Why the selective targeting of Muslims? This is clear evidence of a prejudiced mind. He then further demonstrates his arrogance, ignorance and racism, by claming that the Arabs made no contribution towards human civilisation.
“After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they? Few of them make much contribution to the welfare of the rest of the world. Indeed, apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West - what do they contribute? “
I thought Mesopotamia (Iraq) was the foundation of human civilisation. Any individual with a rudimentary knowledge of history, science, medicine, astronomy and mathematics would have appreciated the role played by Islamic civilisation in contributing towards the European renaissance. He should at the least visit the various museums in London to get bit of education about the Islamic civilisation, which may help to curb his arrogant and racist views.
The mentality of Kilroy-Silk is no different from the common racist and illiterate football hooligans. His recent outburst, devoid of any rational or intellectual basis is an evidence of this. In fact, even Nick Griffin of the BNP (British National Party) would have expressed a more objective view about the Muslims/Arabs. Therefore, no surprise, that Kilroy-Silk did not comment on the illiterate British football hooligans in Iraq that viciously kicked a prisoner to death. Again Kilroy-Silk should take note, such examples are a manifestation of racism, intolerance, and cowardice.
Kilroy-Silk, most likely represents the like-minded minority of right wing racists. The vast majority of the British public are noble and fair-minded, thus, they came out to protest against the unjust war on Iraq. Indeed, the entire world faces real danger from these ant-Islamic fanatics, and extremists, whether they are in the mass media, entertainment or shady figures behind governments like the Neo-Cons.
By posting and drawing attention to the patently ridiculous and most extreme of the extreme nutcases it is possible to delegitimize the more thoughtful middle. Caricatures rarely build up the object.
What purpose does it serve to repeatedly post nonsensical nonsense over and over and over?
Respectfully, I could not disagree with you more.
Posting articles like this has the same effect as the American government during WWII putting up posters of a crazed Hitler.
We need to be reminded of what our enemy believes. We need solidarity and passion in this war. This war is a war of wills like no other.
I for one appreciate learning of the current outrageous sentiments from Jihad, so I can pass it along, and help others understand the nature of what we are against.
I’m open to other views on whether articles like this should be posted, though I think it’s beneficial to see what the “other side” is thinking, and no one is forced to read it.
Zakaria is a prolific internet author from the UK, widely published, though not an acknowledged academic. I think it’s beneficial to see what he has to say.
“Sandmaggot propaganda”, I suppose it is. As to a guise of "criticizing" it, that’s not really the point. Nonsensical, big chunk of even the Western World would disagree with that.
Zakaria’s expressing his world view, one shared by many, that’s not likely to be changed by verbal criticism, expressed on FR or anywhere else. IMO, it is important to recognize the mindset.
Unfortunately, Yamin Zakaria is not that far from the middle. For one thing, Googling on his name and 9/11, and quickly checking a few articles, I see no evidence that he ever repeats slanders about the Jews being behind the attacks. And he never really endorses the attacks either -- all he does it try to explain how the hatred is "understandable" and needs to be put "in perspective" given how the West and the Jews have supposedly treated the Muslim world. As for honor killing, he clearly is against it -- he just wants us to know that it isn't as bad as, say, when the Israelis raid a Palestinian safe house. This is the middle ground. For true pro-western Muslim thought, see:
...and me! Don't forget me!
Phil, I know you thing I'm a radical right wing crazy, but SE has it right. This guy doesn't promote suicide bombing or diversions in air routes, though I suspect his opinion on removal of Jews from the middle east might differ from mine. He's moderate, at worst, hard to put right and left labels on these things, but a little less historical revisionism, he'd be published in Ha'aertz and singing kumbaya around the campfire with Shimon Peres.
He's simply recognizes the danger of the Freedom Fundamentalists (article below). I think that's a kind of libertarian.
.....................................
Freedom Fundamentalists
"...it is not the nascent Islamic ‘fundamentalism’, but the ‘freedom’ fundamentalism that poses the greatest threat to the peace and security in the world."
“Hypocrisy is an inherent part of the disbelievers (infidels) way of life”
The recent ban imposed upon the Muslim women in France from wearing the Islamic scarf (Hijab) gives credence to the above opinion held by many Muslims. It was not too long ago that the Taliban were demonised for not giving a choice to the women of Afghanistan regarding the Islamic scarf, but is it not the same choice now being denied by Chirac? France can be excused but not the Taliban! The same principle is applied by the other member nations (US, UK and Israel) of the Judeo-Christian civilisation as they conduct their brutal aggression and subsequent colonisation under the umbrella of ‘defence’ and ‘freedom’. Isn’t it simply hypocritical to wage an unprovoked war, killing indiscriminately and causing immense destruction in the name of bringing ‘freedom’? What can the dead in Iraq do with their ‘freedom’? What use is ‘freedom’ to those, whose loved ones have been killed, property destroyed, and the wealth of their nation looted? They are not the recipients of ‘freedom’ but the victims of the ‘freedom’ fundamentalists, who are intoxicated with imperial arrogance, fanaticism and intolerance.
The issue of Guantanamo Bay is another example of this same hypocrisy of the ‘freedom’ fanatics lecturing the world about human rights, whilst violating the same at will. Then we had the recent charade of finding WMD in Iraq, whilst existing in abundance in their own backyard, as they are the creators and the largest producers of these types of weapons. Hence, no surprise, that the only WMD found in Iraq were those used by the marauding invaders. The US then ripped open Iraq’s economy, without any legitimate authority, in a manner that it would not do to its own economy. One can go on producing an endless list of the duplicity emanating from these ‘freedom’ fanatics. However, it is worth a closer analysis of this notion of ‘freedom’, as Bush and Blair have been using it incessantly since 9/11, without substantiating its meaning.
In the current political context, the inference from the linguistic meaning of the word is simply “self-rule”, and therefore ‘freedom’ dictates that the nation must decide of its own free will as to how it should govern itself. Which implies that ‘freedom’ must be established from within rather than imposed by a foreign army. The only exception to this, is when a nation under occupation invites some third party to aid them in their pursuit for liberation, as an example, the French under the Nazis invited the Allied forces to help them liberate their country.
The ‘freedom’ zealots have a different approach to this matter. According to the dynamic duo (Bush and Blair) ‘freedom’ extremists, absence of ‘freedom’ as interpreted by them, legitimises its enforcement, even by the use of force. It does not matter, whether it is Gotham city or Baghdad, you must have it. Of course, “enforcing freedom” is a self-contradictory notion, since enforcing denies one the freedom of choice, and freedom necessitates the absence of an external (foreign) enforcing authority! So the motto is, although ‘freedom’ offers choices, however, there is no choice on the issue of governing by the notion of ‘freedom’ as interpreted by the ‘freedom’ fanatics, regardless of the opinion of the masses. Therefore, legitimacy of ‘freedom’ has to be certified by the High Priests of ! ‘freedom’ fundamentalism. For sure, the High Priests will not issue the certification, until the government selected complies with their interests. Perhaps, this is why there has been no free election in Iraq to date, as the early signs indicated that the Iraqis prefer an independent Islamic form of government. It is for the same reason that the West kept silent, and indirectly assisted the Algerian government to suspend the election, when the Islamic party (FIS) was clearly poised to win.
To a layperson, ‘freedom’ may simply mean, the lack of restraint. Restrictions are usually imposed by the state and society, manifested in the laws and regulations. Hence does ‘freedom’ imply a lawless society, total anarchy, like the jungle? As primitive society progresses towards a modern urbanised democratic society, its laws and regulations grow and consequently diminish ‘freedom’. Hence, in the pursuit of ‘freedom’, should societies become more primitive, i.e. lawless? In some respects, societies have become more primitive over the years as they try to attain greater ‘freedom’. The sexual relationship is an example, the traditional constraint of marriage, ethics and morality are being eroded. The youths in the clubs and the beach parties fornicate in public without any inhibition, bringing them closer to the conduct of animals in the jungle that are totally free.
The scholars of ‘freedom’ fundamentalism acknowledge that order and stability is a prerequisite for human survival, and absolute freedom results in chaos. Therefore, they define ‘freedom’ as being subjected to the laws and values imposed by the society, which is subjective as it emanates from certain beliefs, local customs and traditions. Hence the notion of ‘freedom’ is subjective! So who is then to judge, which is a free society and which is not? As an example, many Western societies allow same sex marriage but prohibit polygamy and view it with disdain. Why is the former an endorsement of ‘freedom’ but the latter is not? Despite this, the ‘freedom’ zealots will often attempt to portray it as an absolute and universal concept, transcending all civilisations, often inferring from its linguistic meaning, which has no reality except thr! ough the lawless jungle. For the self appointed High Priests of ‘freedom’ fundamentalism, they assume to have a monopoly over its meaning and implementation.
Therefore let us have a cursory examination of ‘freedom’ as implemented by the ‘freedom’ fundamentalists.
Political System
The embodiment of ‘freedom’ is proclaimed in the system of Democracy. In theory, the masses exercise their free will to select the ruling authority that would be representative of their interests. They are supposed to be the servants of the masses, rather than their masters.
The first question that arises, is whether the notion of majority rule is inherently correct? Did not Adolf Hitler have the majority of the German population behind him? Secondly, how does one prevent the majority from becoming a dictatorship, which suppresses the ‘freedom’ of the minority? What if, the majority in France decided to close down all the Mosques, prohibit Islamic marriages, Islamic slaughtering, Islamic names, and build Gas chambers for the disobedient Muslims, would that be in line with spirit of ‘freedom’? If legislation is passed to protect the minority, it is the same majority that can undo the legislation by passing newer legislation and amendments.
In reality, almost all the democratically elected governments are voted into power by the largest minority of the total eligible voting population. George Bush certainly did not get the majority vote in Florida, as the election was rigged!
Every society by its nature is composed of various competing groups. Naturally the group with the greatest power and wealth will have the largest voice. Taking the US as an example, is it the large multinationals with their huge party ‘donations’ or the thousand of impoverished voters from the Afro-American or Hispanic community who have more influence? Hence, it is not votes but dollars that exert real sway upon the Congress and Senate.
So, the ‘freedom’ of choice exercised by the masses in elections, is overwhelmingly not represented by the democratic government, but it is the weight of money that is represented. Hence, after the elections, the majority of political ‘representatives’ are only interested in serving their ‘donors’.
Economic System
The notion of ‘freedom’ is manifested in the economic model of the “free market”. As mentioned above, society is heterogeneous. That usually results in the domination of a few companies in the market (domestic and international), distorting the paradigm severely. This is expected, as ‘freedom’ implies rule of the jungle, “survival of the fittest”, hence the strongest members will naturally dominate. It may be efficient at first but certainly not fair to the weaker members of society. Given time, that efficiency will erode as the competition diminishes and monopolies and oligopolies emerge as a result.
In the international arena free market economics is never practiced in the manner it is preached by the US or Europe. Just examine the subsidies given to their domestic industries and the import tariffs imposed on foreign imports. The recent summit at Cancun exposed the inherent greed of these Capitalist nations, as they sought to open up the third world markets in a manner not to generate free trade, but to exploitation them and their natural resources. The dictation by the various international institutions (IMF, WTO, WB etc) to the African and other third world nations reflects the same policies.
The philosophy of the free market is profit before ‘freedom’ (or blood). When the Iraqi civilians were being murdered, TV commentary focused upon the effectiveness of the weapons. Is it the Scud or the Patriot? Is it the Abraham tank or the Apache or the Black Hawk that has been most effective? It was no coincidence, that immediately after the first Gulf War, a huge arms exhibition was held in France.
Therefore, in the name of economic freedom, it is the majority that is denied their share of the wealth, hence denial of their economic power (‘freedom’).
Social System
By applying the principal of “judging the tree by its fruits” is perhaps the most effective way of examining the notion of ‘freedom’. Have the men and women under the spell of ‘freedom’ attained greater tranquillity and happiness? If so, why the divorce rates, single parent families, domestic violence, child abuse, suicide rate, drug addiction, crime, and the use of anti-depressant drugs constantly on the rise? The direct consequence of ‘freedom’ has been the erosion of traditional religious family values, leading to a rise in sexual promiscuity. The boundaries of sexual freedom are pushed constantly as all sorts of sexual perversions become the norm. So, is this what Bush and Blair desires for our future generation?
Then comes the flag of “women’s rights”, which is often measured by the removal of their clothes, rather than looking at health, education and security. Is this why the lone Afghan woman was paraded almost naked as a symbol of liberation, whilst those who desire to wear modest clothing are being forced to remove it (Re: recent event in France)?
We also see the bizarre duplicity in the Western attitude towards Islam and the Muslims. As an example, they taunt the Muslims about the vice of polygamy and the inherent goodness of monogamy, but yet, one would be hard pressed to find someone who is truly monogamous in their society, even amongst their leaders e.g. Bill Clinton, Mitterrand, John Major et al. Why is Polygamy marriage a vice, where as mass participation in the form of orgies, including homosexual activities are an endorsement of freedom?
The other category of the ‘freedom’ fanatics are ironically intolerant and/or intellectually inept to address any criticism(s), thus they often resort to racist language and personal attacks. Unfortunately some of the self-appointed leaders of the migrant communities have also adopted the same arguments, blinded by their material success and comforts in the West. The argument presented is simple, “If you don’t like it here, then leave”. Is this not a form of chastising for expressing their opinion under the principal of ‘free speech’? Why is it that, the people who wave the flag of ‘freedom’ are trying to stifle the critics or dissidents by not addressing the issues and asking them to leave the country? This type of behaviour and reasoning tantamounts to an admittance of intellectual cowardice and ineptitude. Of course, these arguments are only posed to those who belong to the migrant communities, even if they are born in the country, especially if they have a non-European origin; otherwise they are simply classified as dissidents. As an example, no one has ever asked the eminent dissident, Noam Chomsky, to migrate from the US. In any case, opinions of this type have a number of inherent contradictions and/or flaws.
a) The notion of a ‘free’ society means the ability to tolerate diverse and opposing views. The very existence of criticism gives substantial credibility to the claim of having a ‘free’ society. Otherwise what is the meaning of ‘freedom’ when opposing opinions expressed are not tolerated and threats are issued to expel them?
b) Those expressing criticism should be viewed as decent law abiding citizens exercising their rights. The ruling elites are the representatives, and hence they must find a way of representing the dissident views, rather then attempt to silence them.
c) Even if the dissident views emanate from the economic migrants, does that automatically mean that they have no right to voice their opinion? Do they not have the right to participate as citizens and alter society in accordance to their viewpoint? Shouldn’t ‘freedom’ itself be the arbiter, in letting the masses decide on the strongest opinion? Isn’t that what ‘free’ thinking is all about? Let the people argue and prove their case.
d) Finally where should many of these migrant settlers go? If the argument is that they oppose ‘freedom’, ‘dictatorship’, ‘secularism’, etc then there is no real choice of settling in anywhere else in the world.
Just examining the track record of the ‘freedom’ fanatics, they have committed genocide and uprooted nations in the name of ‘freedom’, over the last two to three hundred years. The entire notion of ‘freedom’ is built upon deceit and lies. Just examine the layers of deception in fabricating the recent war on Iraq. Therefore it is not the nascent Islamic ‘fundamentalism’, but the ‘freedom’ fundamentalism that poses the greatest threat to the peace and security in the world.
-------------------------------
Of course, I get to be a Freedom Zealot
The author does a remarkable job of pointing out the difficulties of "freedom". What he does not seem to grasp is this fact . . . that freedom is a precarious, delicate . . . even dangerous phenomenon. That we wish to avoid "one man, one vote, one time" in Iraq/Afghanistan is the primary reason that we remain. It is clear that the author sees "imperialism" where he might be seeing "dilligence". Does the author seriously prefer the despotism of Saddam? I don't think so.
But our failure (thus far) to find evidence to support our "reason" for war is troubling. The author sees treachery. I'm not sure where I rest on this issue . . . I'm searching.
As for your graphic . . . Masada's "live free of die" zealots? I relate more to Mel Gibson's "Brave Heart". . . the fidelity to cause of an individual. Sampson turns me off.
No, what I wish is that someone would come up with a reasonable substitute for Arabic petroleum, so we could leave these morons to their fantasies about being big shots 5000 years ago.
Kilroy-Silk is right, the Arabs like to fantasize that they invented Algebra (invented in India), geometry (Greeks), astronomy (Greeks), chemistry (Egyptians and Greeks), the concept of zero (India and South-east Asia), and a lot of other things by the coincidence of being the culture that introduced it to Europe.
Similarly, they argue that all Middle Eastern cultural achievments were Arabic, such as agriculture, writing, religion, and a host of other things that, yes, developed in the Middle East, but not from Arabs, thank you very much.
The non-Arabic Middle Eastern and North African cultures have some reasons to be proud of their accomplishments. Arabs, no. And no, I don't really think there's any point in a crusade. Any culture that produces morons like this writer is beyond hope.
What exactly has Islamic civilization invented recently?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.