Posted on 10/09/2011 5:33:35 PM PDT by Righting
Samuel Huntington, "The Age of Muslim Wars," Newsweek, December 17, 2001
Quoted widely.
Newsweek: Volume 138 - Newsweek, Inc., 2001 - pp. 140-144
The Age of Muslim Wars
By Samuel P. Huntington
Contemporary global politics is the age of Muslim wars. Muslims fight each other and they fight non-Muslims far more often than do peoples of other civilizations. Muslim wars have replaced the cold war as the principal form of international conflict. These wars include wars of terrorism, guerrilla wars, civil wars and interstate conflicts. These instances of Muslim violence could congeal into one major clash of civilizations between Islam and the West or between Islam and the Rest. That, however, is not inevitable, and it is more likely that violence involving Muslims will remain dispersed, varied and frequent.
The age of Muslim wars began as the cold war was winding down in the 1980s. In 1980 Iraq invaded Iran, and the ensuing war produced at least 500,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of wounded. At the same time, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan generated vigorous Afghan resistance, which by 1989 compelled the Soviets to withdraw. This victory was made possible by American technology, Saudi and American money, Pakistani support and training, and the participation of thousands of fighters from other, mostly Arab, Muslim countries. Then in 1990 Saddam Hussein invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait, and the United States organized an international coalition, including several Muslim countries, to defeat him.
In the 1990s violence occurred between Muslims and non-Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, the Middle East, Sudan and Nigeria. Mujahedin fighters from the Afghanistan war were central participants in many of these conflicts as well as in Muslim terrorist organizations in countries throughout the world. In the mid-1990s, roughly half the ethnic conflicts in the world involved Muslims fighting each other or non-Muslims. In one inventory by The Economist, Muslims were responsible for 11 and possibly 12 of 16 major acts of international terrorism between 1983 and 2000. Five of the seven states listed by the U.S. State Department as supporting terrorism are Muslim, as are a majority of foreign organizations listed as engaged in terrorism. In counter-actions between 1980 and 1995, the U.S. armed forces engaged in 17 military operations against Muslims. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 32 armed conflicts were underway in 2000; more than two thirds involved Muslims. Yet Muslims are only about one fifth of the world�s population.
The "new war" as U.S. administration officials termed the violence that began September 11, is thus not so new. It is a continuation and escalation of previous patterns of violence involving Muslims. Earlier Muslim terrorism had, however, been sporadic and in comparison relatively limited: 299 people killed in the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, 270 on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, 224 in the 1998 attacks on U.S. African embassies. Different Muslim groups and states were involved in these incidents. Beginning in 1993, however, the principal attacks on Americans and American facilities all appear to have originated with Osama bin Laden. September 11 revealed the existence of his sizable global terrorist network with cells in perhaps 40 countries and with the expertise and resources to attempt well-planned simultaneous attacks. Also for the first time, the network struck with devastating effect within the United States, its actions highlighting the likelihood of chemical and biological attacks, with the more distant possibility of nuclear weapons. The age of Muslim wars had come home to America.
[...]
Tribal. Religious, ethnic, political and cultural divisions within the Muslim world stimulate violence between Muslims. They also promote violence between Muslims and non-Muslims because different Muslim groups and governments, such as those of Saudi Arabia and Iran, compete with each other in promoting their own brand of Islam and have supported Muslim groups fighting non-Muslims from Bosnia to the Philippines. If one or two states dominated the Muslim world, which has not been the case since the end of the Ottoman Empire, less violence would occur among Muslims and, probably between Muslims and non-Muslims.
http://books.google.com/books?id=CfomAQAAIAAJ&q=inventory
http://books.google.com/books?id=CfomAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Muslims+fighting+each+other+or+non-Muslims%22
Samuel P. Huntington
http://www.iasc-culture.org/HHR_Archives/America/5.1CHuntington.pdf
---
See also:
The new dimension of international terrorism - Pages 59-60 - Stefan M. Aubrey - vdf Hochschulverlag AG, 2004 - Political Science - 312 pages
http://books.google.com/books?id=VJJG14mHbGAC&pg=PA59
http://books.google.com/books?id=VJJG14mHbGAC&pg=PA60
Islam's Mandate- a Tribute to Jihad: The Mosque at Ground Zero - Mr. Pat (Patrick J. Roelle, Sr.) - AuthorHouse, 2010 - History - 520 pages - Page 123
http://books.google.com/books?id=KL0RTx77lrwC&pg=PA123
---
In these days, you can add: Russia, China, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine, Egypt (especially against Christians) and other regions where Musims' violence is rampant.
So far the ONLY candidate that has demonstrated an understanding of Islam is Cain. Perry has a “Muslim Problem” back here in Texas, and I’m not sure about the others.
Hopefully, for the FIRST TIME, we can have a president ready to deal with these guys, and who understands EXACTLY what drives them (i.e., their so-called religion).
The Age of Muslim Wars has been going on for fourteen hundred years.
So how to get them back to just fighting each other???
“I read that Perry backed off the pro-Islam curriculum, is that true?”
Maybe...not actually sure (haven’t dug in enough). But even if so, it shows how easily he can be duped. And if he did back off, we’ll never know why...because it’s simply wrong, or because it would hurt him politically.
That’s the thing about Cain, he’s got this issue crystal-clear at this point...and that affects 60% of our foreign policy (including whether we support Israel when the MSM gangs up on them).
Well, yes and no. It's been intermittent. Sometimes, back when there was a Caliph, the Caliph would get pragmatic and care more about competence and efficiency than Islam, and things would be peaceful (it's from those periods that the myth of Islamic tolerance is spun). Usually this happened after the Muslims got wallopped in one of their endeavors of conquest and someone less hot-headed took over from the would-be conqueror. Then things were peaceful for a while because there was no Caliph and the Muslims were parcelled out into "our bastards" and "their bastards" during the Cold War.
Well, Perry is friends with the current Aga Khan, the leader of the Ismaili Muslims.
Interesting lot the Ismailis: Shi’ites who regard the last legitimate Imam as one Ismail, who was deposed almost immediately upon assuming the role. The fielded the Assassins and were, for a while, the rising faction in Islam, at least in south and central Asia, until their power was completely destroyed by the Mongols. After that, despite being one of the few sects of Islam to have formally expanded the list of “Pillars of Islam” to include waging jihad, they became almost pacifistic. They regard jihad as including both internal struggle against sin and war against the infidel, but regard only the Aga Khan as having the authority to call for the latter external form of jihad, something they have shown no inclination to do since the Mongol invasion. Recent Aga Khans have been Oxbridge educated and very cosmopolitan, and show even less inclination to call for warfare against the infidel.
(They figure in my list of object lessons on how Islam might eventually be turned into an ordinary religion, the others being non-Islamic examples of the same shift the Ismailis underwent: the pacifism of the theretofore literally militant Anabaptists dates only to the hideous Seige of Muenster, and as the transformation of Imperial Shinto from the last war-cult to use its adherents as guidance systems for bombs into a fixture of post-WWII pacifist Japan.)
“If one or two states dominated the Muslim world, which has not been the case since the end of the Ottoman Empire, less violence would occur among Muslims and, probably between Muslims and non-Muslims.”
Less violence among Muslims would not occur until a vast conflict between the competing visions of Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia are played out with numerous sub conflicts in the meanwhile, as if Islam in Indonesia would not be involved either. A Caliphate with modern weapons would not hesitate to immediately press for global dominance. Liberals do not seem to address this reality or recognize what is coming.
In the meanwhile, the Saude Sunni, Wahabbist, Salafists are petrified of Iranian Persian Shiites with nuclear weapons.
As to conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, a 1400 year record of continual emnity and Jihad against non-Muslims stands supreme. Now that the West has upgraded a 7th century political/religious death-worshipping system with modern weapons, expect continued conflict of increasing severity within Islam and against the rest of the planet.
No past Jihad activity can come close to what exists now world wide, and is promised for the future. In the face of this the current course of the West is...suicidal without demography even entering the picture.
If Huntington is suggesting a course for establishment of a Caliphate as a more simple form of centralized Islamic political power for the West to deal with is something to be desired, he and even possibly the current US administration are going to be disappointed. As it stands, in addition to the movement started by Mohammed, another Pandora’s box has been opened by the West beginning with European immigration and Islamic institution sharing policies in the sixties, and it cannot be closed.
In the US cultural and violent Jihad are both present in the US at all levels of govt and the private sphere. The only outcome is increasing conflict.
I googled Cain and Muslims. There are several sites to go to. This one said,
“Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain met with a Virginia-based Muslim group Wednesday and apologized for his recent controversial comments about the faith,...”
Cain is learning how to be a politician. Perry backed off, Cain apologized.
“Cain is learning how to be a politician. Perry backed off, Cain apologized.”
And it was smart of Cain to back off. I look for what candidates do BEFORE they’re under the microscope of running for the political office. There one can see the instincts...Cain was anti-Muslim, Perry was pro-Muslim. What they do after that is what’s needed to try to win office.
So I have my answer...
I like Cain and have not decided who I will be voting on. At this moment I prefer Perry. What you said about Cain not liking muslims before he was running but now likes them is good instincts?
When interviewed On “The Glenn Beck Program” radio show May 24, Cain said;
“I did not say that I would not have them in my Cabinet. Because if you look at my career, I have hired good people regardless of race, religion, sex, gender or orientation and this sort of thing,” Cain told Beck.
Sounds like he had relations with muslims before running too.
“What you said about Cain not liking muslims before he was running but now likes them is good instincts?”
I only said the part about Cain initially having a problem with Muslims is good instinct...it shows he understands them. “Liking” them now is simple politics, exactly what Perry is doing in the reverse direction.
FR may be ready, but the rest of the country is nowhere near ready for a president who’s willing to take on Islam. Cain had to do what he did, or he’d be out of the race by now. For that, I don’t have a problem.
As to who he hires...that’s fine, it simply shows me why he was successful. And I have no doubt that he’ll hire some Muslims, among the 1000+ people he gets to put into office, but hopefully none in his cabinet.
“but hopefully none in his cabinet.”
I hope that too
He covered for it..unsuccessfuly for the informed....but he has thousands and thousands of Muslims in his major cities now...who he assisted and encouraged then to come to his state...and encourages building Mosques and Muslim Community Centers which are used to convert the “infidels” to Islam....by training the American Muslims to convert others...and it’s working.
WHat????.....You better "hope" Cain intends to clear them out of Washington not hire them on. We already know there are Muslims working in our Gov. who are directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. We don't need to add to their population in our government.....are you forgetting the Islam in our country is political Islam???
Oh he understands but he reneged on the issue after pressure for Cair and other Muslim organizations.....he shouldn't have....by doing so he showed he will not be direct about this threat if he gets the Presidency.
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.