Root cause idiocy

[Categories : Civilization , History , Religion , International , Secularism , Society , Politics]

This is easily the one of the most stupid post I saw.

I realize the personal tone is hardly commendable, but it maddens me to see delusional rhetoric on the web, not to say find people who think that Chev Guerra is still cool.
Or that Naxalism is a valid ideology.

At any rate, the blogger in question is making a case for clash of civilization, which is not unusual , however his narrative is highly specious and prejudiced.
To quote from the post

"…Deus lo volt!" (God Wills It!). Said, Pope Urban II about a thousand years ago. This speech, delivered in central Gaul (modern France), started a series of attacks by Christian Europe on Middle East. The soldiers were mostly french but the armies included soldiers from almost all of european christiandom. The purported purpose of these attacks on middle east was to make the christian pilgrimages to the holy land safer. But soon it transformed into a general attack on Arabs and Jews in the area. These attacks, now called the "crusades" collectively, succeeded in planting a small christian kingom in the heart of the middle east….."

In above paragraph a case is made out that Christian Europe was aggressor. This is true, but this is the partial truth. The implication of the above paragraph is that Islam was the victim.
And yet this is misleading, for the reason that Islam itself in middle east spread by edging out Christianity and Judaism sometimes by political alliances sometimes by sword.

Indeed speed at which Islam spread was unparalleled in history of religions so far, while it took Christianity more that seven centuries to spread in Europe, Islam in 50 years had conquered and subordinated Egyptian and Persian civilizations.

Again the Levant owing to being birthplace of Christianity held a special place for Christians as a pilgrim center and it was Islam which usurped the place from Christians by power of sword. Further at the time of first crusade it was a Christian empire (Byzantium) which was under threat from Islamic invasion. In fact the request from Byzantine for protection was one of the reasons (along with desire to recapture Levant in fold of Christian Dom ) which prompted Pope Urban II to declare Crusade.
So it is inaccurate to portray crusade as a quasi - national struggle.

if any thing Christianity had a prior claim to levant

(Indeed the history of crusades is complicated and the above description does not any justice to it. For reference see Wiki)

But apology of introduction is not the worst of it. The description goes downhill from here


1. Western colonism over arab countriesThis includes not only the middle east, but north africa too. Other regions that have arab influence and suffered from western hegemony, include Iran, central asian countries, south eastern asian countries. The colonial era was replete with economic exploitation and mass murders (eg: Algeria). The mass murders may be over now that colonialism is over. But western companies still dominate key industries (Oil, of course) and sustain tin-pot dictators and "kings". The western hypocrisy is so obvious when it talks about democracy and liberty when convenient and then hobnobs with regressive governments and gives strength and legitimacy to these. I dare say that without western props, many countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan may be having democracy now.

First before petroleum was discovered, there was not much for western colonials to loot from middle east, so I am at loss to understand what can be meant by economic exploitation of middle east which will justify present anger. While it is true that Algeria saw one of the worst crimes against humanity , the present tension has little connection with it.
This is not to say that west did not exploit after discovery of oil, but they did it by controlling the despots/sheikhs and at any rate it can not justify current rage in Arab Street.
Second Iran and central Asia were never under western hegemony. Iran was a independent state and Central Asia for most part of 19th and 20th century remained under Russian control. Indeed the only reason Britain went to Afghanistan was because she was apprehensive of Russian ambitions in Indian subcontinent, this was of course so called great game.

Again it can be said that during the cold war west took some steps which it could have avoided, (by this I mean it shouldn't have supported various despots)

However to say that democracy has not flourished in Middle East due to western hegemony is a falsification of the worst kind. If anything without western props Saudi Arabia will be a theocracy and in hands of crazy wahabist.
Similarly lack of democracy in Pakistan has less to do with western interference and more to do with vested feudal and religious interest. Parvez Musharraf like his predecessors did not come to power due to western support but with the help of military and tactic support of various power centers.

And if someone thinks that current terrorism has anything to do with lack of democracy, then I think there is some serious problem in the thinking.

But the biggest mistake that blogger makes is in assuming that western colonialism was directed against Islamic countries only. If anything Africa, India, China and Indo China were more affected by economic exploitation and brutalities. Vietnam was more ravaged by America than Iraq and still there is no terrorism from Vietnam.

To stress the point While west can b e accused of economic exploitation, and political manipulation, it can not even begin to explain current rage.


2. Breakup of Ottoman EmpireAfter the industrial revolution in europe, Ottoman empire started losing its power and started shrinking - first from europe, then in middle east itself. The WW-I was the final straw for the Ottoman empire. The loss of Khalifa was something many grudged back then (and started a "Khilafat movement" in India too).

Ottomon empire was on the wrong side of war and it was broken from inside itself.
Kamal Ataturk who was a visionary and by bringing down the Caliphate he ensured that Turkey is at present a rarity in this world being a Muslim majority secular nation.
I can not fathom when Turks had no love of caliphate, why should others pine for ottomon.

Khilafat movement was a sham, started by Mahatma Gandhi in naïve belief that it will integrate muslims into main stream of freedom movement, but ended up as one of the significant events leading to partition (ironically Jinnah was not pleased by Khilafat movement)

3. Creation and western sustenance of Israel after WW-III always wonder if it is a coincidence that the map of Israel is almost identical to the crusader kingdom established a thousand years ago. No need to discuss what the creation of this country (and its later land acquisition in 1967) did to relations between the arabs and the west. We can read about the affects of this in the newspaper everyday.

Arguably this is one of the most quoted reason for terrorism. Here I am amused to find the way blogger is trying to connet Israel (which is a Jewish nation) with Chritians Crusades.
Truth is that since its creation arabs are trying to wipe Israel off the map (as the leading light of Iran Ahmenijabad said),1967 war was started by the arabs to destroy Israel however the blogger in question is displaying his ignorance or perhaps deliberately supporting destruction of Israel, inspite of the fact Israel has made sincere efforts for reapproachment only to be rebuffed by arabs.

4. East Timor independenceThe world meditated independence of east Timor was seen by many in islamic nations as an interference and similar reciprocal interference is not there in cases like palestine, kashmir, chechnia etc. (These are not my opinions - but this is how many in islamic nations see it)

Again east timor was a matter of Indonesia, I do not find what is the reason for Muslim counteries to feel aggrieved as . Christians did not support serbs afte break up of Yugoslovakia.

5. 9/11 and War on TerrorThe hundreds of thousands of civilians that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the so called War on Terror started, pale the 9/11 casualties (with all due to respect to those who died in 9/11 - they certainly didn't deserve to). The US may find the war justified but the other side almost uniformly sees it as an unjust war doing more damage than good.

Again it is deliberate case of falsifying the history, most of the civilian casualities in Iraq and Afghanistan have occurred due to terrorist attacks by Baathist and Al Qaeda.
Also terrorism was very much alive before 9/11, just not noticed by west.
By blaming US for casualities the implication is that Afghanistan and Iraq were better under Taliban and Saddam respectively. Also I am puzzled by what blogger means by other side , because if it is meant to be Iraqi and Afghani citizens, they seem to approve of American efforts.Again I do not understand when Iraq and Afghanistand do not have problem with American action why should Muslims in general should feel aggrieved.


6. Cartoon controversyAgain, it is being seen as a general western attack on muslim sensibilities. While I am all for freedom of press, it is hypocritical to jail someone for an anti-semitic remark while allowing gross insult to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). Keep a single set of rules for everyone on all issues. I am not condoning the violence conducted by protesters in Syria but western countries are not blameless.

First the limits to freedom in Europe are hardly balanced as Ashish posted here.

However to compare the case of Jews who were threatened with extinction in Europe to current controversy is unjustified in my opinion. If anything the comparision should be made with attitude towards Christianity, and Europeans are hardly forgiving of christians either.

And yet the deranged ramblings of the blogger miss a very crucial point.
That this jihad is not againt west only. It is also against Kashmiri Pundits, Hindus of Bali, Buddhists of Thailand and Christian of Indonesia and Phillipines .

So present situation is not a direct result of west

Others counteries besides Islamic were colonized. Hindus and Buddhists also faced brutality and ruthlessness of the west. Even today, they may harbour ill feelings against "gora log" and yet it does not translate into terrorism.

To paraphrase Shakespeare "there is something rotten in state of Islam "

I have pointed towards it earlier and I will like to come back to it at some later time.

My fear is that Bush administration and such other brainless western regimes will take the world towards another series of wars akin to the original crusades.

It is this falsification and equivocation for ideological oneupmanship by apologists of terrorism which aggravates situation, pushing it towards a frightening scenarios.
As long as the attempts such as above are made to whitewash Jihadi terrorism as an exercise in victimization, any attempt to solve the menance will fail.

I will like to add that I find it disappointing that DesiPundit which claims to represent best of blogosphere linked to this tripe

And yes it can not be Crusade 2.0 as there were already six or more crusades, some directed against heretics and jews as well.