On The Times Online comment section, Bronwen Maddox suggests that the Bombay atrocities must not allow us to lose sight of who the real enemy is - and then goes to great lengths to avoid mentioning who the real enemy is.
Maddox attempts to define the enemy as "terrorism", but terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. It's like suggesting that, in 1940, our enemy was aerial bombardment, not Germany and that, having come through the Blitz that would have been sufficient to defeat our enemy. It wasn't. What defeated the enemy was correctly identifying it and doing all we could to destroy it.
We could not have won either if we had narrowed down our enemy to just Nazis. Of course Nazism was the root of our enemy, but we could not have restricted our operations to just defeating Nazis. It had to be the total defeat of both the ideology and the infrastructure that supported it - which meant identifying our enemy not just as Nazism but Germany as a whole.
It was only after Germany had been defeated that we could allow ourselves the luxury of differentiating between those Germans who supported Nazism and those that didn't - and even then that was no simple task.
Maddox is right to say that the enemy is not Pakistan - although Pakistan and India have long standing disputes related to the traditional reason for war (territory). Indeed, with a couple of obvious exceptions, the enemy is not a national entity at all in the accepted sense, but a transnational enemy that exists in every corner of the globe and every strata of society.
She is very wrong to describe the enemy as terrorism, though.
The enemy is Islam.
Not "militant Islam" or any other term you wish to use to try and differentiate between those that actively wage war on us and those that just do nothing. Because Islam is an enemy which is not restricted by any national identity we have to recognise the strategies and tactics that is employs against us.
Terrorism is a tactic.
The strategies for deploying the tactic of terrorism are transnationalism and multiculturalism.
The defence against such strategies are nationalism and monoculturalism. Until we recognise that porous borders, immigration, transnational and international "rights" and "laws" that take prominence over national freedoms and law are the very things that allow terrorism to flourish then we are likely to continue to suffer more and more atrocities like Bombay, Madrid, 7/7 and 9/11.
Ultimately, we will lose.
4 comments:
It was only after Germany had been defeated that we could allow ourselves the luxury of differentiating between those Germans who supported Nazism and those that didn't - and even then that was no simple task.
Yet now we are faced with Jews who allow themselves the luxury of not differentiating between Germans and europeans. Never mind Germans & nazis.
My Jewish ex-girlfriend one day put me in my (then liberal) place by pointing out that British people were hardly less complicit in the holocaust than any other europeans.
Naked ethnocentrism right there. It certainly opened my eyes a bit.
Ive since heard this attitude replicated by other Jewish people. My ex btw was not some zionist or religious type but she had the party line down pat.
No ethnic nationalist policies for you Mr European, not allowed, no sir.
Bronwen Maddox is ignorant of the motives of Islamic terrorists and she professes Britain's imperial policy objectives of currying favour with Muslims. Britain is not an imperial power precisely because it failed to read that Muslims are no longer the major players. USA has correctly read the signs that non-Muslims at the receiving end of the Islamic attacks would survive and prosper while apparently aggressive Muslims would stagnate or go backwards.
Solving Kashmir will never reduce the Islamic violence towards non-Muslims. The Quran clearly says that such violence should be perpetuated until there are no more non-Muslims. The prophet Muhammed's life of violence against non-Muslims is also an example for Muslims to follow. He is called Al Insan Al Kamil(Perfect human being) so that Muslims would copy his violent methods. Furthermore, the Hadeeths confirm that such violence is a must for Muslims and they must support it financially or by risking their own lives. Bronwen Maddox should realise that oil will run out and trying to curry favour with Muslims would be futile and eventually backfire with 7/7 type attacks in London. So, it is not only immoral to side with Muslims or take neutral mediatory position, but also, it is not in the interest of Britain.
India one way or another is stuck with its Muslims.
We otoh dont need to have any here at all. Step one is of course not to let any more in. Step to is arrange for the rest to go home.
Then we will find, inexplicably to a leftist or a neo-con, that we dont have to worry about Islamic terror anymore.
step to should be step two. Whoops!
Post a Comment