Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Post-9/11: Clash of civilisations
The Daily Pioneer ^ | Sep 10 2002 | Sandhya Jain

Posted on 09/09/2002 12:11:00 PM PDT by lyonesse

Any honest assessment on the anniversary of the World Trade Centre tragedy must surely conclude that there is no global coalition against terrorism. There never really was. The coalition was a polite term coined by US President George Bush Jr to garner the support (or mitigate the opposition) of the international community for his punitive strikes against the Osama bin Laden-Mullah Omar regime in Afghanistan, to give his people the satisfaction that the atrocity was being avenged and simultaneously topple a regime inimical to America's strategic interests. Both objectives being quickly achieved, the coalition (sic) simply evaporated, unnoticed.

That is why the Western world is dangerously at odds with itself today. Because, while some European countries are seriously debating issues raised by Islamic fundamentalism within their respective borders, America is determined upon unilateral engagement with the sponsors of this ideology. Ostensibly, the rift is over the proposed crackdown on Mr Saddam Hussein. But this is only symptomatic of a deeper Western disquiet at the grim nature of the struggle that will ultimately have to be waged against Islamic fundamentalism, and Washington's refusal to face the reality.

India has long been the bloodiest theatre of Islamic militancy in the world, barring only Israel. Now that the false hopes of American containment of Pakistan-sponsored terror have been well and truly dashed, New Delhi would do well to let go of Washington's coat-tails and forge intellectual bridges with Europe about the threats posed by fundamentalism. It should also intensify the dialogue with Israel, which has a strong voice in Washington. Unlike Europe, India has no social or political history of anti-Semitism, a factor that needs to be skillfully exploited in Tel Aviv and Capitol Hill.

Europe's contempt for US action against Mr Hussein has some merit. To begin with, there is no credible evidence regarding his weapons of mass destruction. But more pertinently, the Bush Administration has not been able to explain why the Iraqi President would use these weapons, and against whom. He has no plans to attack Israel or the US, and could be easily contained in the event of such a misadventure. In fact, the real danger to America comes from friendly nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Palestine, rather than the demonised regimes of Iraq, Syria and Libya.

Some Western commentators claim that Mr Bush's real goal is to secure Saudi oil supplies. Former British Minister Mo Mowlam has argued that Iraq is only a pretext for America to enter the region because of the growing vulnerability of the Saudi regime (The Guardian, September 5, 2002). Mr Bush, she argues, fears that the world's largest oil reserves may fall into the hands of an anti-US, militant group. While America cannot prevent a popular uprising, it can seize the Saudi oil fields if it has a military force firmly in place at the time of the anticipated unrest. Then, under the umbrella of the war on terrorism, it can claim to be global saviour of secure oil supplies.

The thesis is faulty on several counts. First, a revolution that can dislodge the House of Saud, a la the Shah of Iran, can equally throw out the hated Americans. Second, the US imports much less Saudi oil than previously. Third, this does not explain President Bush's extreme obsequiousness towards the Saudis, especially in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

The Saudi envoy, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, spirited nearly two dozen close relations of Osama and the Saudi royals studying in America, to Riyadh, within 24 hours of the disaster. This precluded their possible interrogation by security agencies and obviously involved administrative cooperation, as American commentators sharply pointed out. To this day, it rankles Americans that 15 of the 19 hijackers of September 11 were Saudi nationals.

If that were not bad enough, Mr Bush just celebrated his version of the Agra Summit in the run-up to the first anniversary of September 11. As the free press choked with rage, Prince Bandar and six of his (how many?) children (no wives, my dear) was lavished with what The New York Times called the full ranch treatment at the President's 1,600-acre Texas ranch. But what really set Mississippi aflame was Mr Bush's telephone call to Crown Prince Abdullah the same day, telling him to ignore the rising crescendo of anti-Saudi sentiments in the superpower. The call was intended to mitigate a Rand Corporation presentation to an important Pentagon advisory board that the Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from ideologues to cheerleader.

Americans, as opposed to the Bush Adminis-tration, increasingly view Saudi Arabia as the greatest threat to world peace today. The regime does not allow children of Saudi fathers and American mothers the right to leave the country. Even more damning are the well-documented facts. Three-fourths of the September 11 hijackers were Saudis; two-thirds of the Islamic militants in Guantanamo Bay are Saudis. Osama is of Saudi stock and, according to The Times of London, received $ 300 million as protection money from Saudi royals. Saudi funds created Al Qaeda. The House of Saud patronises the fanatical Wahhabi Islam, the inspirational creed of militant Islam.

European societies too are finally coming to grips with the limitations of ideas like multi-culturalism. After decades of allegiance to the concept, Denmark (200,000 Muslim immigrants) has begun to feel the stress of coexistence with an extremely divergent ideology. Among a number of serious cultural issues, the most prominent include anti-Jewish riots and open death threats to the minuscule Jewish population (6,000 only), which now lives under police protection.

Equally serious are threats to kill Muslims who leave the faith. But most provocative is the open declaration by Muslim leaders that once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough (possible in just three-four decades), it will press for the introduction of Sharia (Islamic law) in the country.

The possibility of Sharia as law also stares other European societies, such as Holland, in the face. Denmark, in fact, became so concerned that in November 2001, for the first time in 72 years, it elected a centre-right coalition on a mandate to handle immigration issues differently from the socialists. Over the past nine months, the new Government made immigration procedures a little tighter, and is said to be examining a ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir for issuing death threats against the Jews. But this has not inhibited the Islamic clerics from issuing an edict calling Muslims to drive native Danes out of the Norrebro quarter of Copenhagen (to make it a Muslim ghetto).

Understandably, most Danes feel their Government has barely touched the tip of the iceberg, and are peeved at the American, British and UN protests against their so-called Islamophobia. Unfavourable international press has driven the new Government into extreme apathy, from which it will prove difficult to rouse, until and unless other European nations wake up to the gravity of the threat.

One year after the WTC attack spearheaded the greatest-ever challenge to the values of the West, there has been no headway even in defining the nature of the threat. This ostrich-like attitude will have profound implications all over the globe, wherever there is a commitment to the high values of civilisation.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 911; clashofcivilizatio; islam; terror

1 posted on 09/09/2002 12:11:00 PM PDT by lyonesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lyonesse
...a revolution that can dislodge the House of Saud, a la the Shah of Iran, can equally throw out the hated Americans.

The conclusion is a non sequitur that does not follow from the premise. That is, just becasue a revolution could dislodge the House of Saud, does not mean it could dislodge the US military from the oil fields.

2 posted on 09/09/2002 12:22:05 PM PDT by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lyonesse
"India has long been the bloodiest theatre of Islamic militancy in the world, barring only Israel. Now that the false hopes of American containment of Pakistan-sponsored terror have been well and truly dashed, New Delhi would do well to let go of Washington's coat-tails and forge intellectual bridges with Europe about the threats posed by fundamentalism."

"intellectual bridges with Europe about Islamism"...come again? Does the author mean with the right-center Europeans who are sick of the creeping Muslim invasion by immigration, or the hare-brained Europeans who are opposed to US self-defense?

3 posted on 09/09/2002 12:32:42 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lyonesse
This essay is a curious combination of fairly knowledgeable details with complete misunderstanding of what is going on. It'd say this is a bright young man who is in way over his head.
4 posted on 09/09/2002 12:39:39 PM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lyonesse
"most provocative is the open declaration by Muslim leaders that once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough (possible in just three-four decades), it will press for the introduction of Sharia (Islamic law) in the country.

"The possibility of Sharia as law also stares other European societies, such as Holland, in the face."

Remind me to see the humor when it happens.

5 posted on 09/09/2002 12:57:16 PM PDT by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
I agree with you, D.L. If the West can find the resolve to defend itself, defense of the oil fields will be easy.

The hard part's finding the resolve.

6 posted on 09/09/2002 12:59:35 PM PDT by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lyonesse
What's going to be even funnier will be female American "Liberals" grumping about in their burqas. The soccar moms will have to get men to drive them around. Lesbians will have to find men to escort them when they go out on the town. And female "vocalists" like Barbra Streissand can just hang it up; women will not be allowed to sing in public.

Remind me not to say, "I told you so."

Remind me to try to see the humor.

7 posted on 09/09/2002 1:07:33 PM PDT by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
One thing this author does not understand: Liberating the oil in Iraq means a big drop in world oil prices. This means that the Saudis will loose huge sums of money. Which means that they will have to stop funding their worldwide terrorist school system.

That is, an attack on Iraq is an attack on Saudi Arabia. That's why the Saudi's are apoplectic about this.

The big problem is that lower oil prices also hurt the Russians, big time. That is why Russia opposes the war. How the Russia card plays out is the most important, but little watched, issue on the table today.

8 posted on 09/09/2002 1:10:12 PM PDT by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
a bright young man who is in way over his head.

India has been up to its eyeballs with these creeps for a thousand years or more. Not that they don't have their home grown thugs.

It strikes me that when bullies get tired of picking on the weak and scrawny, and try topick on the U.S., its a bad move on their part.

Americans have shown PC tolerance so far, and our memories are short, but every time someone waits 6 hours to get through airport security, it's all fresh again.

9 posted on 09/09/2002 1:10:40 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
Agreed..the argument assumes that Saud and America are equal in might.

Regardless though I think the article raises some extremely precient points. In the 1300's there was a sweeping expansion of the "Islamic" Empire into India as well as conquering a good portion of Europe. Ironically the way they (muslims) accomplished this objective was to spearhead these conquests with decades long "migrations" (read immigration) of islamic peoples into the conquered areas. When the population centers got large enough they struck. Like bringing a viper to your bosom. The end result was the conquest of most of Persia and India as well as a third of western Europe before once again the tides shifted and several hundreds of years later Europe managed to win back what was once theirs from the Islamic hordes. Frankly Islamic history is full of examples of so called "Immigrants" who later turned out to be little more then "peaceful invasions" that stopped being peaceful once they had enough strength. The west has been fighting off Islamic "invasion" for more than a millnium. It is amazing how quickly we forget history and as the old adage goes those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Where I think the article has extreme merit is that I personally believe that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. The Wests insistance on IGNORING the facts of history and the facts of the current situation on the ground are leading us down a very dangerous path. These so called "immigrants" even admit openly that there ultimate goal is to convert the western world to Islamic rule and yet despite this admission Western Government choose to ignore the realities. Eventually those realities are going to rear their ugly head in a very unpleasant fashion. A lot of people (perhaps millions) will be dead before it is over. Th emost frustrating thing is that if our leadership would just have the guts and courage to actually lead We could stop this mess before it even gets started.
10 posted on 09/09/2002 1:30:41 PM PDT by Prysson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
Does the author mean with the right-center Europeans who are sick of the creeping Muslim invasion by immigration, or the hare-brained Europeans who are opposed to US self-defense?

I believe he is refering to the growing tide of right of center movement who see the Islamic invaders for what they are and want them kicked out. Of course people who think that way are labeled inacurately as Nazi's by the leftist neo-marxists of Europe and America and that label still has sufficient connotations to it that it does successfullly stimey alot of rightward leaning measures.
11 posted on 09/09/2002 1:33:42 PM PDT by Prysson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lyonesse
"One year after the WTC attack spearheaded the greatest-ever challenge to the values of the West . . ."

Wrong. The WTC attack pales in comparison to the complete subjugation and de-Christianisation of North Africa, the conquest of Constantinople, the invasion of Spain, France, and the Balkans, and the siege of Vienna. All of the previous challenges have been greater in scale and scope.

What makes this challenge different is the nature of the "defenders." In the past, whenever the Moslems went on one of their rampages, they were opposed by people who actually stood for something. What they stood for, of course, was Christianity (the Jews are comparatively new targets of Jihad) and they went to war against Islam in the full knowledge that it was "either them or us.".

George II, to the contrary, pretends to believe (or actually believes, which is a much more frightening possibility) that only a miniscule portion of the Moslem population is engaged in active hostilities, and THEREFORE Islam is a "religion of peace." This is an example of lying with statistics. Of course it is only a minority of the Moslems that are fanatics and active warriors. But here's the part that Bush et al. will not address: this minority constitutes the leadership of the Islamic community -- the teachers and clerics.

Let's concede that a small minority of the Islamic population is involved in terrorism. An even smaller minority of the Japanese population bombed Pearl Harbor. And they got two A-bombs for their troubles.

But now George II is preparing to attack everyone's favourite scapegoat, Saddam Hussein. I think if we look at the numbers, Saudi nationals have been guilty of killing more Americans on 9/11 than the Iraqi army did during the entire Gulf War. Yet we are still pals with the Saudis. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the major reason for sequestering the al Qaeda prisoners is so that that the public does not catch on to the extent of Saudi involvement in international terrorism.

But why let the facts get in the way of George II's Bush's Splendid Little War, Part Two?

12 posted on 09/09/2002 1:37:11 PM PDT by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lyonesse; *Clash of Civilizatio
But this has not inhibited the Islamic clerics from issuing an edict calling Muslims to drive native Danes out of the Norrebro quarter of Copenhagen (to make it a Muslim ghetto). We'll see a lot more of this to come in this century.
13 posted on 09/09/2002 1:38:54 PM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy; knighthawk; Cacique; firebrand; rmlew; Dutchy; StarFan; nutmeg; RaceBannon; Coleus
ping!
14 posted on 09/09/2002 1:38:59 PM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ffrancone
I dont think Russia is really all the concerned about the downfall of Saddam. It would take a total incompetent to not have seen the writing on the wall after Sept 11.

Russia's economic moves and recent trade agreements with Iraq are actually very good moves politically. By positioning themselves in such a manner that they stand to lose a great deal of "money" if Saddam is removed they actually insure that when he is removed Russia will have a place at the table in the rebuilding process...something that they were not allowed to have in Afgahnistan for obvious reasons. Basically though Russia has twice now in the past four years been left "out of the loop" in a nation building process. The first time because of their own reticence the second because of their own past mistakes in judgment. This time they mean to be in on it. The recent trade agreement with Iraq was Putins way of telling Bush...I want in on the deal.
15 posted on 09/09/2002 1:40:01 PM PDT by Prysson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Prysson
That's an interesting take. I hope you are right. But I fear that the prospect of $15 per barrel oil for the forseeable future will be very very persuasive to the Russians.
16 posted on 09/09/2002 2:16:30 PM PDT by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lyonesse
We can fight them now on their land or wait till they attack us again, and try to fight to defend ourselves, after they attack us again and again and weaken our military. I vote for getting them now. We also need to drill for oil in California where I live now, Florida, Alaska, etc. Everywhere we can! We need to stop relying on Middle Eastern oil peroid, then we might not care if they are shooting each other all the time. OK we would still care!
17 posted on 09/09/2002 2:39:59 PM PDT by buffyt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lyonesse
9/11

9 x 11 = the 99 attributes (names) of Allah

9/11, Allah declares war.

Does the west know? Some of us do.

18 posted on 09/09/2002 2:45:37 PM PDT by Jeremiah Jr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ffrancone
Excellent points.
19 posted on 09/09/2002 2:50:51 PM PDT by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
ACtually Muslims went after Jews first. Read teh Hadith, which is quite explicit on this. Arabia once had a large Jewish population. Yathrib (later Medina) was built by Jews. Most members of the Quraish clan in Mecca (which Mohammed was related to by marriage) were Jews. Khaibar/Khobar (recently known for the explosion at the US barracks) was Jewish. All this changed from 624 to 630, whebn the armies of Mohammed conquered the Jewish tribes, killing the men and enslaving and converting the rest. Those tribes not fully deafeated where expelled from Arabia.

As for Iraq, I would note that there is considerable evidence that Iraq played a large role in teh first WTC attack and is now hiding Al-Qaeda members.
We do know that there are training centers in Iraq which contain a mock-up of airliners for terrorists to train on.
It is possible that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officers. I believe that Iraq has very dirty hands regarding 9-11.

20 posted on 09/09/2002 7:14:17 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson