Posted on 09/08/2004 1:30:21 PM PDT by A. Pole
Anarchists suck ping
The Koran already had those "stateless" goals --- to bring the whole world --- all people --- under Muslim submission. Muslims are instructed that they must no live among the infidels except for the purpose of conquering the infidels --- how stateless can you get? World wide Islam is the goal, destruction of all governments besides the one Islam government is what they're after.
It is the time for men of good will to look deeper and further for thr truth.
1, Globalism - the "New World Order" - rose to prominence in the early 90s after the collapse of the Soviet empire. Whether running large multi-national corporations, or influencing the policies of major countries, it's undeniable that the globalists, who are western leftists generally, view nation-states as an impediment to their utopian dreams. Hence the open-borders lobby, Soros' Open-Society Institute, etc. etc. During the 90s, the globalists viewed the Islamists as effective tools to achieve theie goals in those places that might prove resistant to the drumbeat of multiculturalism - places like Yugoslavia and Russia, where nationalist feelings still run deep. After all, there's no problem with the average Euro-crapweasel, who has been indoctrinated since pre-school to despise his own nation/culture and worship at the altar of multiculturalism and "diversity."
2. The Islamists, useful though they were a decade ago, have blown up in the globalists' face as of 9/11/01 - so that there is now a split in globalist strategy.
(adding my own analysis here)
On one side are the "practical" globalists who realize that the jihadis are as big of a threat to themselves as they are to any remaining western nation-states. Thus their short-term goal is to put a lid on the jihadis. Tony Blair is the best example of this view. He's a globalist who will happily destroy England as a distinct nation via open borders and handing over sovereignty to the EU, but he's smart enough to realize that utopia may never come about if the jihadis manage to set the world ablaze.
On the other side you have Chirac and Schroeder, who think they can eventually corrupt the burgeoning Muslim hordes in their own countries through the degenerate moral climate so typical of post-Christian Europe. It's nothing but wall-to-wall sex, drugs, and MTV in Euro-utopia, all subsidized by endless welfare and coupled with a multiculturalist police state where even mild criticism of the "religion of peace" can land you in prison. They are betting that the Muslims there will eventually become just another group of apathetic, obedient automatons (like the natives) - willing to swallow whatever effluent is emitted by the 'ministry of truth' (the Crapweasel media). Thus Chirac and Schroeder pander to both the Kool-Aid swilling Euros and the seething Muslims. They simply refuse to acknowledge the threat, and kowtow at every opportunity to the jihadis.
It's one thing to spread the good news of salvation and another to go out and slaughter all the infidels. There is no comparison between Islam and Christianity or other religions.
The Nazis could have been just as much a religion as Islam. Hitler could have declared himself a prophet of some god and then Nazis in the USA would have complete freedom especially today to spread their form of hate and fascism.
You are really on to something with your references to late 19th century anarchism linked with pan-Arabism and Wahabbi idealism. See the really great book by Paul Berman, Terror and Liberalism.
There are far too many men dedicated to expunging religion,especially Christianity rrom the world they are creating for us,to give them any grist for their mill. To charaterize the perpetrators of terror as Islamists only opens the door for comparisons with other religions.
If you had a primary tumor that was throwing off cancer cells that were taking hold and spreading throughout your system and your doctor decided to bombard all the metastatic sites with lethal doses of chemo or radiation and ignore the primary site,he would be remiss. Essentially that is just what you are advising and it is a remedy that will do nothing to stop the cancer but instead will ensure that it will continue to throw off cancer cells and eventually overwhelm and kill you. Bad,bad medicine.
No,to find the source or genesis of the disease is paramount. The writer of thi article makes a good case for looking at the effects of a worldview that ignores nations and men's borders and boundaries. Cui bono?
It's reassuring to see that, in the first part of the article, the author analyzed the situation pretty much as we did.
Blaming Clinton for everything makes as much sense as blaming Bush for everything. The simplest explanation is that the Muslim world, which has been declining for 400 years, is facing final disintegration and thus is producting ever more ruthless and desperate defenders. I'll stick with that until I find better.
reading all comments with interest.
Even the terrorists didn't like taking a school.
BTTT for later read
This article is nonsense. The Beslan massacre is ONE thing I think we can safely exonerate Clinton from blame on.
I've hated him enough already. I'd prefer to hate the child-killers now.
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.