How can we as members of the western civilization
tolerate that our political leaders have become either spineless cowards or
total ignoramuses? How can we tolerate that time and again we
hear them repeat the same nonsense?. Why have we elected them in the first
place? How come that most of the journalists in the world have no self- respect left to question
such idiocy?
Violent
extremism
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a
medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the
devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other
modes of thought impossible. It was intended that
when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a
heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from
the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as
thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact
and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could
properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the
possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by
the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by
stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible
of all secondary meanings whatever.”
It is not odd that the President
of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has more
courage than any of the leaders of the West? In his speech
on Dec 28, 2014, he said:
“That thinking—I am
not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we
have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has
become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s
antagonizing the entire world!
Is it possible that
1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s
inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!
….
I say
and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are
responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is
waiting for your next move… because this umma is being
torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own
hands."
Shmuel Trigano put it well in his
recent analysis
on the January 11 demonstration in Paris, (a free translation):
"Nevertheless, there is an amalgam on the side of political leaders at the highest level when they after each attack engage in a proclamation of allegiance saying urbi et orbi that Islam was falsely invoked by the attackers and their actions, i.e. “It is not Islam“( e.g. Cameron, Hollande, Obama). However, it is clear to anyone that Islam is the only motive of the attackers which is collaborated by the fact that the new converts can immediately engage from their new religion in terrorism, something they would have had no reason to do previously. The amalgam is renewed surreptitiously when these leaders speak of absolute "Islam", the "Muslims" as a whole that the Islamist would betray. This is a sign that deep down they believe that there is a reason to be suspicious. To feel obliged to defend the Muslims as a block as if they were ALL responsible for the fundamentalists among them, although they claim to belong to the same Islam, raises a doubt."
"Amalgame il y a néanmoins du côté des leaders politiques, au plus haut niveau, quand ils se livrent, à chaque attentat, à une véritable profession de foi théologique, proclamation d’allégeance, en affirmant urbi et orbi que la cause avouée des agressions, l’islam, serait invoqué mensongèrement par les assaillants et que leurs actes, “ce n’est pas l’islam”(Cf. Cameron, Hollande , Obama…). Or, il est évident aux yeux de tous que l’islam est la motivation unique des agresseurs, ce que corrobore le fait que de nouveaux convertis puissent aller rapidement de leur nouvelle religion au terrorisme, qu’ils n’auraient eu aucune raison de pratiquer auparavant. L’amalgame est donc reconduit subrepticement quand ces leaders parlent comme d’un absolu de “l’islam”, des “musulmans” en bloc, que les islamistes trahiraient. C’est le signe qu’ils pensent en fait profondément qu’il y aurait de quoi les soupçonner. Se sentir obligé de défendre en bloc les musulmans, dont on ne voit pas pourquoi ils seraient TOUS responsables des fondamentalistes parmi eux, même si ceux-ci se réclament du même islam, instille le doute."
Kerry:
Violent extremism is not Islamic
Kerry:
Violent extremism is not Islamic
DAVOS, Switzerland — Violent extremists who are killing children and others in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and other parts of the world may cite Islam as a justification, but the West should be careful about calling them Islamic radicals, Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience of opinion leaders Friday at the World Economic Forum.
In a speech calling for a global effort against violent extremism, Kerry said it would be a mistake to link Islam to criminal conduct rooted in alienation, poverty, thrill-seeking and other factors.
“We have to keep our heads,” Kerry said. “The biggest error we could make would be to blame Muslims for crimes...that their faith utterly rejects,” he added.
“We will certainly not defeat our foes by vilifying potential partners,” the top U.S. diplomat said. “We may very well fuel the very fires that we want to put out.”
Kerry’s comments highlighted a rhetorical division between the U.S. and its closest allies. French President Francois Hollande told the same audience earlier Friday that Islamic extremism is a problem that must be opposed. On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond stood next to Kerry and urged the defeat of what he called “the scourge of violent Islamist extremism.”
The Obama administration has come under criticism for its unwillingness to differentiate between Islamic extremism and other forms of extremist violence.
Earlier this week, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii and Iraq war veteran, said it was a “bipartisan concern” that Obama and his top aides don’t use the term “Islamic extremism.”
*******
