• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Is Europe paying the price for America’s Project in the Middle East?

Dirty Dragon

Well-Known Member
This seems to be the main cause.
Unfortunately, the situation under the classic leadership of Europe is deteriorating.
Besides Muslim bashing on this forum, How do we effectively reverse the spreading of this phenomenon?

There is two angles to that.
- Stopping it at the source (i.e. Stopping USA/Saudi/Turkey/etc) from creating these terrorists.
- Finding ways to counteract the intended objectives of these operations

I don't know how to go about the former. But in the latter, as civilians, we have some degree of influence. Giving them less media attention, and doing more things that promote solidarity and coexistence, or any narrative opposite to the "clash of civilizations" one. More generally building a psychological immunity to the kind of psychological effects the attacks induce.
 
Last edited:

hola!

Member
There is two angles to that.
- Stopping it at the source (i.e. Stopping USA/Saudi/Turkey/etc) from creating these terrorists.
- Finding ways to counteract the intended objectives of these operations

I don't know how to go about the former. But in the latter, as civilians, we have some degree of influence. Giving them less media attention, and doing more things that promote solidarity and coexistence, or any narrative opposite to the "clash of civilizations" one. More generally building a psychological immunity to the kind of psychological effects the attacks induce.

Is it not peculiar how Trump provides ISIS all the tools to recruit supporters and volunteers by attacking and provoking a pool of 1.6 billion people around the globe and in return, ISIS executes systematic attacks to give Trump more popularity and help him getting elected?
As of now, Trump is 5 points ahead...

Obviously both sides are masters at what they’re doing. Sadly enough, the rest of us are not capable of rising above our bigotry and animal instinct.
Meanwhile, only the innocent bystanders are the victims.
 

nonsense

Legendary Member
Good point.
@Goku and co. Where do we go from there?
Spammers: Please stay clear of this thread and allow real intellects to discus the causes and solutions to Europe's dilemma.
Thanks for reviving this thread!

I agree with Conv. above. I think all of this is playing with a backdrop in most countries where the rich-poor divide is growing, and populations are struggling to keep or regain the freedoms and benefits their parents had.

Take the economic crisis of a few years ago and all the harm it did. It is stupefying to realize that the rich got richer, while everyone else got poorer.

I think governance is in crisis at the global and national level in many places. Populations need to hold their governments accountable, but it is a struggle. For every 1 success there are 10 failures.

While struggling for their own well-being, populations should also not forget that other populations are harmed by their government's actions as well, and this ought to be on the people's agenda for change. But change is slow, and with many barriers. Take Jeremy Corbyn for example, he is anti-war since decades and would have been UK's PM today had he not been backstabbed by his own party's politicians (not members).

Still, some 'leaders' are waking up, despite their long coma. The German leadership in particular, and France to a lesser extent, are becoming more aware of the dangers of more conflict in Eurasia, and more vocal about it too. I think when the fire comes too close to your door, you better get wise quick. Some leaders are more 'insulated' than others, and think they can survive any fire. Our hopes lie in the few that will move, and the populations that demand this.

More specifically, I think Europe will still reap the result of what is (and others) have sowed, for a few more years. ISIS and fundamentalism is the immediate threat, but confrontation with Russia and China is the big issue. Nobody knows the future. The more conflict seeds are sown, the worse the future will be.

I am optimistic that the new multi-polar world unfolding now will be a better one that the last. But by the time we get there, I fear too many lives would have been lost, and more importantly it will be too late to effectively tackle climate change and rising pollution. Imagine in 50 years hundreds of millions are displaced because the sea level rose 5m. That is a global refugee crisis.

Ok, that was maybe a bit too broad from me;p.

Practically:
1. Defend the freedom of the internet
2. Debunk clash of cvilizations as Conv. mentioned
3. Build bridges everywhere, build psychological immunity as above
4. Strengthen a shared global human consciousness
 

Chanklish

Well-Known Member
How about azhar and all religious head agree that all these terrorist are not muslims and declare this ?

They cant ..these terrorists are following the quran to the letter
 

Abotareq93

Legendary Member
How about azhar and all religious head agree that all these terrorist are not muslims and declare this ?

They cant ..these terrorists are following the quran to the letter


شيخ الأزهر مجدداً: لا أستطيع تكفير "داعش"

القاهرة - أشرف عبدالحميد

رفض الدكتور أحمد الطيب شيخ الأزهر تكفير تنظيم "داعش" مجدداً. وقال خلال لقائه، مساء الثلاثاء، بطلاب جامعة القاهرة إنه "لكي تكفر شخصاً يجب أن يخرج من الإيمان وينكر الإيمان بالملائكة وكتب الله من التوراة والإنجيل والقرآن، ويقولون: لا يخرجكم من الإيمان إلا إنكار ما أدخلت به".

وتساءل "ما حكم شخص يؤمن بتلك الأمور ويرتكب إحدى الكبائر، هل يصبح كافرا؟" وهناك مذاهب أخرى، تقول إن مرتكب الكبيرة لا يخرج من الإيمان، بل هو مؤمن عاص، فلو أنه مات وهو مصرٌّ على كبيرته لا تستطيع أن تحكم عليه أنه من أهل النار، فأمره مفوض لربه.

وأضاف شيخ الأزهر قائلاً: "أعرف أنكم تسألون عن الإرهاب، وعن داعش وأخواتها وما أظنكم بغافلين عن حقيقة هذه التنظيمات المسلحة، والظروف التي ولدت فيها، وكيف أنها ولدت بأنياب ومخالب وأظافر، وكيف أنها صُنعت صنعاً لحاجة في نفس يعقوب، ومعنى في بطن الشاعر، وقد صار اللعب الآن على المكشوف، وظهر ما كان بالأمس مستخفياً وأصبحت هذه التنظيمات ألعوبة في يد من يحركها ويصنعها وتقوم بتجنيد الشباب مستغلة عدم معرفته بأمور دينه الصحيح".

واستشهد شيخ الأزهر بالآية الكريمة: "إنما جزاء الذين يحاربون الله ورسوله ويسعون في الأرض فساداً أن يقتلوا أو يصلبوا أو تقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم من خلاف أو ينفوا من الأرض ذلك لهم خزي في الدنيا ولهم في الآخرة عذاب عظيم"، مضيفاً أن الأزهر لا يحكم بالكفر على شخص، طالما يؤمن بالله وباليوم الآخر، حتى ولو ارتكب كل الفظائع.

وأضاف: "داعش لا أستطيع أن أكفرها، ولكن أحكم عليهم أنهم من المفسدين في الأرض، فداعش تؤمن أن مرتكب الكبيرة كافر فيكون دمه حلالاً، فأنا إن كفرتهم أقع فيما ألوم عليه الآن.

وقال شيخ الأزهر "إن البتر المتعمد بين التراث والمعاصرة، كان سبباً في خلق أجيال حديثة تنتمي إلى تغيرات الزمان وتبدلات المكان بأعمق مما تنتمي إلى فلسفة المبدأ"، مطالباً الشباب أن يدركوا الحدود الفاصلة بين العقل المستضيء بنور الوحي الإلهي ونصوصه الصحيحة الثابتة، والعقل الجامح الذي يدمر في طريقه كل شيء.

وأشار إلى أن الأزهر يلعب دوراً في ترسيخ المفاهيم الصحيحة للدين والشريعة في عقول الناشئة لحمايتهم من استقطاب الفكر المنحرف ودعوات الغلو والتطرف والقتل وحمل السلاح في وجه الآمنين والمسالمين.
 

hola!

Member
How about azhar and all religious head agree that all these terrorist are not muslims and declare this ?

They cant ..these terrorists are following the quran to the letter

Would that make them less of terrorists? Then we can call them mentally disturbed. Problem solved! I’m not sure Trump would like that…
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
شيخ الأزهر مجدداً: لا أستطيع تكفير "داعش"

القاهرة - أشرف عبدالحميد

رفض الدكتور أحمد الطيب شيخ الأزهر تكفير تنظيم "داعش" مجدداً. وقال خلال لقائه، مساء الثلاثاء، بطلاب جامعة القاهرة إنه "لكي تكفر شخصاً يجب أن يخرج من الإيمان وينكر الإيمان بالملائكة وكتب الله من التوراة والإنجيل والقرآن، ويقولون: لا يخرجكم من الإيمان إلا إنكار ما أدخلت به".

وتساءل "ما حكم شخص يؤمن بتلك الأمور ويرتكب إحدى الكبائر، هل يصبح كافرا؟" وهناك مذاهب أخرى، تقول إن مرتكب الكبيرة لا يخرج من الإيمان، بل هو مؤمن عاص، فلو أنه مات وهو مصرٌّ على كبيرته لا تستطيع أن تحكم عليه أنه من أهل النار، فأمره مفوض لربه.

وأضاف شيخ الأزهر قائلاً: "أعرف أنكم تسألون عن الإرهاب، وعن داعش وأخواتها وما أظنكم بغافلين عن حقيقة هذه التنظيمات المسلحة، والظروف التي ولدت فيها، وكيف أنها ولدت بأنياب ومخالب وأظافر، وكيف أنها صُنعت صنعاً لحاجة في نفس يعقوب، ومعنى في بطن الشاعر، وقد صار اللعب الآن على المكشوف، وظهر ما كان بالأمس مستخفياً وأصبحت هذه التنظيمات ألعوبة في يد من يحركها ويصنعها وتقوم بتجنيد الشباب مستغلة عدم معرفته بأمور دينه الصحيح".

واستشهد شيخ الأزهر بالآية الكريمة: "إنما جزاء الذين يحاربون الله ورسوله ويسعون في الأرض فساداً أن يقتلوا أو يصلبوا أو تقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم من خلاف أو ينفوا من الأرض ذلك لهم خزي في الدنيا ولهم في الآخرة عذاب عظيم"، مضيفاً أن الأزهر لا يحكم بالكفر على شخص، طالما يؤمن بالله وباليوم الآخر، حتى ولو ارتكب كل الفظائع.

وأضاف: "داعش لا أستطيع أن أكفرها،
ولكن أحكم عليهم أنهم من المفسدين في الأرض، فداعش تؤمن أن مرتكب الكبيرة كافر فيكون دمه حلالاً، فأنا إن كفرتهم أقع فيما ألوم عليه الآن.

وقال شيخ الأزهر "إن البتر المتعمد بين التراث والمعاصرة، كان سبباً في خلق أجيال حديثة تنتمي إلى تغيرات الزمان وتبدلات المكان بأعمق مما تنتمي إلى فلسفة المبدأ"، مطالباً الشباب أن يدركوا الحدود الفاصلة بين العقل المستضيء بنور الوحي الإلهي ونصوصه الصحيحة الثابتة، والعقل الجامح الذي يدمر في طريقه كل شيء.

وأشار إلى أن الأزهر يلعب دوراً في ترسيخ المفاهيم الصحيحة للدين والشريعة في عقول الناشئة لحمايتهم من استقطاب الفكر المنحرف ودعوات الغلو والتطرف والقتل وحمل السلاح في وجه الآمنين والمسالمين.

w dawini bellati kanat hiya el da2ou.
 

JB81

Legendary Member
Would that make them less of terrorists? Then we can call them mentally disturbed. Problem solved! I’m not sure Trump would like that…

There are mentally disturbed; and there are Islamist terrorism. Both are problems that should be dealt separately. Keep ignoring the Islamic problem while people are being slaughtered under its name.
 

The Bidenator

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
There is two angles to that.
- Stopping it at the source (i.e. Stopping USA/Saudi/Turkey/etc) from creating these terrorists.

What does this mean? Would you consider ISIS as an independent organization?

Also, who is responsible for the attacks in France and elsewhere?

- Finding ways to counteract the intended objectives of these operations

I assume by "operations" you mean the terrorist attacks in Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

How do you know what the objectives behind those attacks are? And, more importantly, what's more crucial at this juncture, stopping these attacks or targeting perceived psychological effects of these attacks?

I don't know how to go about the former. But in the latter, as civilians, we have some degree of influence. Giving them less media attention, and doing more things that promote solidarity and coexistence, or any narrative opposite to the "clash of civilizations" one. More generally building a psychological immunity to the kind of psychological effects the attacks induce.

Europeans, in general, are much more tolerant of foreigners -- both as people and as government. You cannot preach to them about solidarity or coexistence, because you will be barking up the wrong tree. The recent wave of backlash against Islam/Muslims, or at least perception of such backlash, is a reaction to Islamists attacks. Up until two years ago, perhaps currently as well, Jews topped the list of victims suffering from hate crimes. The top perpetrator were none other than Muslims.

Promoting "any" narrative opposite the clash of civilizations one is irresponsible. And this is not exactly a clash of civilizations. It's a clash of two eras; modern or contemporary versus medieval.

Normalization of attacks targeting innocent civilians, like what happened in the Middle East is a great, efficient way to create psychological immunity.
 

The Bidenator

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Is it not peculiar how Trump provides ISIS all the tools to recruit supporters and volunteers by attacking and provoking a pool of 1.6 billion people around the globe and in return, ISIS executes systematic attacks to give Trump more popularity and help him getting elected?
As of now, Trump is 5 points ahead...

Obviously both sides are masters at what they’re doing. Sadly enough, the rest of us are not capable of rising above our bigotry and animal instinct.
Meanwhile, only the innocent bystanders are the victims.

This argument has about as much merit as arguments made by those who blame rape victims for their choice of attire.
 

The Bidenator

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Practically:

None of the items below are 'practical'; they are all theoretical. Mere concepts.

1. Defend the freedom of the internet

You did not elaborate what you mean by this point. There is freedom from censorship, and there are cases of harassment (virtual and real) targeting feminists (mainly) and other activists for the work they do.

2. Debunk clash of cvilizations as Conv. mentioned

Already been debunked, as civilizations compete for the collective betterment of humanity. Clearly not what is going on here, since we have people who managed to find vaccines for infectious disease with potential to wipe out the whole planet fighting against people who think camel piss is an effective medical treatment.

3. Build bridges everywhere, build psychological immunity as above

Why are Europeans at the top of your list? If you want to build bridges, I suggest you start with the Islamists. They can certainly use the talk, I think. Where is your sense of adventure? Afterall, it's easy to build bridges with people who tolerate difference and dissent, rendering the whole activity an exercise in futility. Hence why you need to identify the people that need to learn tolerance.

4. Strengthen a shared global human consciousness

Come again? Can't follow 'practically' with idealist poetry. You do remind me of myself when I joined this forum. Idealist me would've agreed with you. But realistically? The world is more complex for an idealist approach. For example, you can preach tolerance and be pragmatic and vigilant while facing Islamic extremism. You can preach tolerance and at the same time support a sensible immigration approach as opposed to keeping the borders open for anyone to come in. You can preach tolerance and raise the alarm when the number of foreign refugees is almost double the number of the native population.
 

nonsense

Legendary Member
None of the items below are 'practical'; they are all theoretical. Mere concepts.
Well if I knew you were so picky I would have qualified with 'more'. But I think you are just fond of chatting with me now, which is nice.
You did not elaborate what you mean by this point. There is freedom from censorship, and there are cases of harassment (virtual and real) targeting feminists (mainly) and other activists for the work they do.
Since you asked, the internet is a main communication mode not only internationally among people, but within countries. Oppressive forces will want to control it in different manners (censorship, non-anonymity, newsfeed for the masses), even so far as to shut it down. There are already some moves for the big powers to agree that the internet is a no-go area in the event of war. It is a major way for people to gain insight into their own nation's actions and that of others, and helps hold governments accountable.
Already been debunked, as civilizations compete for the collective betterment of humanity. Clearly not what is going on here, since we have people who managed to find vaccines for infectious disease with potential to wipe out the whole planet fighting against people who think camel piss is an effective medical treatment.
Not debunked according to many people. I'd be happy to follow on this, but make it more interesting please, its not vaccines and camel piss you know;p.
Why are Europeans at the top of your list? If you want to build bridges, I suggest you start with the Islamists. They can certainly use the talk, I think. Where is your sense of adventure? Afterall, it's easy to build bridges with people who tolerate difference and dissent, rendering the whole activity an exercise in futility. Hence why you need to identify the people that need to learn tolerance.
They aren't at the top at all. But they are relevant as a major factor in Eurasia, which is the arena for the next cold war. That and their countries are among the richest and very able to influence others for the better, or worse. Everyone can use more bridges, and less walls.
Come again? Can't follow 'practically' with idealist poetry. You do remind me of myself when I joined this forum. Idealist me would've agreed with you. But realistically? The world is more complex for an idealist approach. For example, you can preach tolerance and be pragmatic and vigilant while facing Islamic extremism. You can preach tolerance and at the same time support a sensible immigration approach as opposed to keeping the borders open for anyone to come in. You can preach tolerance and raise the alarm when the number of foreign refugees is almost double the number of the native population.
Yes I agree the world is a complex place. People seem to forget that when offering narrow solutions. But nobody has all the answers for every single situation. So to some extent we can use our knowledge of history, current events and plain common sense.
If you have alternative ideas to defuse the current tensions mention by Hola, do share.
 

Chanklish

Well-Known Member
شيخ الأزهر مجدداً: لا أستطيع تكفير "داعش"

القاهرة - أشرف عبدالحميد

رفض الدكتور أحمد الطيب شيخ الأزهر تكفير تنظيم "داعش" مجدداً. وقال خلال لقائه، مساء الثلاثاء، بطلاب جامعة القاهرة إنه "لكي تكفر شخصاً يجب أن يخرج من الإيمان وينكر الإيمان بالملائكة وكتب الله من التوراة والإنجيل والقرآن، ويقولون: لا يخرجكم من الإيمان إلا إنكار ما أدخلت به".

وتساءل "ما حكم شخص يؤمن بتلك الأمور ويرتكب إحدى الكبائر، هل يصبح كافرا؟" وهناك مذاهب أخرى، تقول إن مرتكب الكبيرة لا يخرج من الإيمان، بل هو مؤمن عاص، فلو أنه مات وهو مصرٌّ على كبيرته لا تستطيع أن تحكم عليه أنه من أهل النار، فأمره مفوض لربه.

وأضاف شيخ الأزهر قائلاً: "أعرف أنكم تسألون عن الإرهاب، وعن داعش وأخواتها وما أظنكم بغافلين عن حقيقة هذه التنظيمات المسلحة، والظروف التي ولدت فيها، وكيف أنها ولدت بأنياب ومخالب وأظافر، وكيف أنها صُنعت صنعاً لحاجة في نفس يعقوب، ومعنى في بطن الشاعر، وقد صار اللعب الآن على المكشوف، وظهر ما كان بالأمس مستخفياً وأصبحت هذه التنظيمات ألعوبة في يد من يحركها ويصنعها وتقوم بتجنيد الشباب مستغلة عدم معرفته بأمور دينه الصحيح".

واستشهد شيخ الأزهر بالآية الكريمة: "إنما جزاء الذين يحاربون الله ورسوله ويسعون في الأرض فساداً أن يقتلوا أو يصلبوا أو تقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم من خلاف أو ينفوا من الأرض ذلك لهم خزي في الدنيا ولهم في الآخرة عذاب عظيم"، مضيفاً أن الأزهر لا يحكم بالكفر على شخص، طالما يؤمن بالله وباليوم الآخر، حتى ولو ارتكب كل الفظائع.

وأضاف: "داعش لا أستطيع أن أكفرها، ولكن أحكم عليهم أنهم من المفسدين في الأرض، فداعش تؤمن أن مرتكب الكبيرة كافر فيكون دمه حلالاً، فأنا إن كفرتهم أقع فيما ألوم عليه الآن.

وقال شيخ الأزهر "إن البتر المتعمد بين التراث والمعاصرة، كان سبباً في خلق أجيال حديثة تنتمي إلى تغيرات الزمان وتبدلات المكان بأعمق مما تنتمي إلى فلسفة المبدأ"، مطالباً الشباب أن يدركوا الحدود الفاصلة بين العقل المستضيء بنور الوحي الإلهي ونصوصه الصحيحة الثابتة، والعقل الجامح الذي يدمر في طريقه كل شيء.

وأشار إلى أن الأزهر يلعب دوراً في ترسيخ المفاهيم الصحيحة للدين والشريعة في عقول الناشئة لحمايتهم من استقطاب الفكر المنحرف ودعوات الغلو والتطرف والقتل وحمل السلاح في وجه الآمنين والمسالمين.

So he cannot deny ISIS are muslims ..
 

hola!

Member
This argument has about as much merit as arguments made by those who blame rape victims for their choice of attire.
I'm not following you. Who's the rape victim in your analogy Trump or ISIS?
Either way I'm not aware of either wearing miniskirts:embarresed:
 

hola!

Member
Is it not peculiar how Trump provides ISIS all the tools to recruit supporters and volunteers by attacking and provoking a pool of 1.6 billion people around the globe and in return, ISIS executes systematic attacks to give Trump more popularity and help him getting elected?
As of now, Trump is 5 points ahead...

Obviously both sides are masters at what they’re doing. Sadly enough, the rest of us are not capable of rising above our bigotry and animal instinct.
Meanwhile, only the innocent bystanders are the victims.

This argument has about as much merit as arguments made by those who blame rape victims for their choice of attire.
:cyclops:

Donald Trump and Islamic State Agree: No Room for People Like Khizr Khan

Donald Trump and Islamic State Agree: No Room for People Like Khizr Khan


Aug. 2 2016, 7:06 a.m.




When Khizr Khan stood up to speak at the Democratic National Convention last Thursday, his family story was not widely known. Neither he nor his wife was a figure of public prominence, nor had he spoken at any major political events in the past. But, waving a copy of the United States constitution, Khan addressed Trump in evocative terms that resonated across the country, asking the GOP candidate if he had “ever even read the U.S. constitution” and telling Trump that he had “sacrificed nothing, and no one.”

The sacrifice that Khan was referring to was that of his son, Humayun Khan, an Army captain who was killed while stationed in Iraq in 2004. In the days since the DNC ended, Khan’s speech has dominated public discussion about the election campaign. He has promised to continue speaking out until the Republican Party leadership repudiates Trump for his proposed ban on Muslim immigration to the United States.

The irony of Trump’s proposals about Muslims is that they partly mirror the Manichaean worldview of terrorist groups like the Islamic State. Both effectively carve the world into a binary of Muslims versus non-Muslims, finding no space for complex identities like the Khan family that encompass both Islam and the West.

A few days after Khan’s speech, ISIS released its own view on the controversy in its online magazine Dabiq. Under a picture of Humayun Khan’s grave at Arlington Cemetery, a caption read simply: “Beware of dying as an apostate.” According to the worldview of the Islamic State, Muslims of any denomination who do not accept its rule — let alone those who join groups like the U.S. military — are considered traitors. Not only have they forfeited their Muslim identity, they are considered contemptible enough for their deaths to be mocked and celebrated.

But people like the Khans are not only loathed by Muslim extremists. Since Khizr Khan’s speech, Trump has made incendiary comments about his wife, while far-right media outlets and Trump campaign surrogates have begun publicly spreading dark conspiracies about Khizr’s alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other seditious foreign organizations.

The abysmal lack of evidence for these claims has been no barrier. The message this sends is that regardless of the grave sacrifices the Khan family has made for America, their foreignness will remain intact.

In this way, the messages of the Islamic State and America’s populist right reinforce each other. The Khans are “apostates” from Islam in the eyes of ISIS, but they are also not truly American in the eyes of a large political movement that has coalesced around the candidacy of Trump. Khizr Khan’s sacrifice, losing a son in an American war, has not been enough to inure him from charges of disloyalty. In a black and white world, he and his family fit in nowhere.

Following the controversy over Trump’s comments, the Republican Party leadership issued tepid statements reaffirming its support for military service members and opposition to religious tests in politics. But to date, few have taken any meaningful steps toward disavowing Trump’s candidacy over his rhetoric. Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from the United States, which he recently claimed to have “expanded,” registers support from a near-majority of Americans according to recent polling.

While Khizr Khan’s DNC speech was inspiring, the abstract ideals he invoked so passionately seem almost quaint in front of these brute facts. Trump’s candidacy has proven that the power of mass politics, mixed with crude ethnic appeals, can challenge the traditional idea of a citizenship based on rights and responsibilities.

In the long term, this revelation could have dire consequences for political culture in the United States.

In the 20th century, small revolutionary movements frequently sought ways to upend the existing social order by “heightening the contradictions” within their society. The urgent question today is whether there is a contradiction between being a Muslim and an American, or a Muslim and a European. The apocalyptic grand strategy of the Islamic State, a desperate insurgent group operating over parts of Syria and Iraq, hinges on Muslims and non-Muslims around the world deciding that there is such a contradiction inherent in their coexistence, forcing them to separate from each other by whatever means necessary.

America has in large part managed to incorporate people from all types of backgrounds in its institutions, many of whom have come to identify with them strongly. The danger of Trump’s candidacy is that it has articulated a popular vision of America that has no place for people like these, whose identities are complex and overlapping. In his world, the very existence of someone like Khizr Khan appears to be a contradiction.

It’s still difficult to imagine such a vision resonating with a majority of voting Americans. But if it does succeed, Trump will have won an achievement that undermines national unity over the long term. There will be less space for people like Khizr, Humayun, and Ghazala Khan, or others who represent a diverse yet coherent vision of the United States. Americans will instead be divided into opposing camps based on their ethnic or religious identity: a catastrophic victory.
 

JB81

Legendary Member
:cyclops:

Donald Trump and Islamic State Agree: No Room for People Like Khizr Khan

Donald Trump and Islamic State Agree: No Room for People Like Khizr Khan


Aug. 2 2016, 7:06 a.m.




When Khizr Khan stood up to speak at the Democratic National Convention last Thursday, his family story was not widely known. Neither he nor his wife was a figure of public prominence, nor had he spoken at any major political events in the past. But, waving a copy of the United States constitution, Khan addressed Trump in evocative terms that resonated across the country, asking the GOP candidate if he had “ever even read the U.S. constitution” and telling Trump that he had “sacrificed nothing, and no one.”

The sacrifice that Khan was referring to was that of his son, Humayun Khan, an Army captain who was killed while stationed in Iraq in 2004. In the days since the DNC ended, Khan’s speech has dominated public discussion about the election campaign. He has promised to continue speaking out until the Republican Party leadership repudiates Trump for his proposed ban on Muslim immigration to the United States.

The irony of Trump’s proposals about Muslims is that they partly mirror the Manichaean worldview of terrorist groups like the Islamic State. Both effectively carve the world into a binary of Muslims versus non-Muslims, finding no space for complex identities like the Khan family that encompass both Islam and the West.

A few days after Khan’s speech, ISIS released its own view on the controversy in its online magazine Dabiq. Under a picture of Humayun Khan’s grave at Arlington Cemetery, a caption read simply: “Beware of dying as an apostate.” According to the worldview of the Islamic State, Muslims of any denomination who do not accept its rule — let alone those who join groups like the U.S. military — are considered traitors. Not only have they forfeited their Muslim identity, they are considered contemptible enough for their deaths to be mocked and celebrated.

But people like the Khans are not only loathed by Muslim extremists. Since Khizr Khan’s speech, Trump has made incendiary comments about his wife, while far-right media outlets and Trump campaign surrogates have begun publicly spreading dark conspiracies about Khizr’s alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other seditious foreign organizations.

The abysmal lack of evidence for these claims has been no barrier. The message this sends is that regardless of the grave sacrifices the Khan family has made for America, their foreignness will remain intact.

In this way, the messages of the Islamic State and America’s populist right reinforce each other. The Khans are “apostates” from Islam in the eyes of ISIS, but they are also not truly American in the eyes of a large political movement that has coalesced around the candidacy of Trump. Khizr Khan’s sacrifice, losing a son in an American war, has not been enough to inure him from charges of disloyalty. In a black and white world, he and his family fit in nowhere.

Following the controversy over Trump’s comments, the Republican Party leadership issued tepid statements reaffirming its support for military service members and opposition to religious tests in politics. But to date, few have taken any meaningful steps toward disavowing Trump’s candidacy over his rhetoric. Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from the United States, which he recently claimed to have “expanded,” registers support from a near-majority of Americans according to recent polling.

While Khizr Khan’s DNC speech was inspiring, the abstract ideals he invoked so passionately seem almost quaint in front of these brute facts. Trump’s candidacy has proven that the power of mass politics, mixed with crude ethnic appeals, can challenge the traditional idea of a citizenship based on rights and responsibilities.

In the long term, this revelation could have dire consequences for political culture in the United States.

In the 20th century, small revolutionary movements frequently sought ways to upend the existing social order by “heightening the contradictions” within their society. The urgent question today is whether there is a contradiction between being a Muslim and an American, or a Muslim and a European. The apocalyptic grand strategy of the Islamic State, a desperate insurgent group operating over parts of Syria and Iraq, hinges on Muslims and non-Muslims around the world deciding that there is such a contradiction inherent in their coexistence, forcing them to separate from each other by whatever means necessary.

America has in large part managed to incorporate people from all types of backgrounds in its institutions, many of whom have come to identify with them strongly. The danger of Trump’s candidacy is that it has articulated a popular vision of America that has no place for people like these, whose identities are complex and overlapping. In his world, the very existence of someone like Khizr Khan appears to be a contradiction.

It’s still difficult to imagine such a vision resonating with a majority of voting Americans. But if it does succeed, Trump will have won an achievement that undermines national unity over the long term. There will be less space for people like Khizr, Humayun, and Ghazala Khan, or others who represent a diverse yet coherent vision of the United States. Americans will instead be divided into opposing camps based on their ethnic or religious identity: a catastrophic victory.

Correction: No Room For ISIS and their sponsors... Trump is willing to work with Russia to defeat ISIS.
 

hola!

Member
Correction: No Room For ISIS and their sponsors... Trump is willing to work with Russia to defeat ISIS.

Quite a revealing statement from a “God Bless America” type of guy for saving the World from the Evils…

Start by telling us who ISIS sponsors might be? Last time I checked they were Turkey, KSA, and Qatar with the blessing and support of the USA for the past five years under Obama/Hillary administration.
The US has never been serious about eradicating ISIS. On the contrary, Wikileaks is about to prove that.
Hillary Clinton Funding ISIS? Julian Assange Claims Proof Will Come Soon

Trump is a flaky liar but you’re right I take my chances on the crazy guy over the criminal woman who has blood on her hands.
No wonder why America’s corporate media is so biased against trump; he might be the guy to make International deals that might hurt America’s business of war.
Instead of working with Russia, Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran to stop ISIS, Hillary just revealed her first work order if elected President: Focus on destroying the Syrian government just like she did in Libya in favor of ISIS. That’s music to the ears of Israeli Nazis.
Hillary Clinton wants to review US strategy in Syria against Isis and Bashar al-Assad's 'murderous' regime | Americas | News | The Independent
 

hola!

Member
Hillary Clinton wants to review US strategy in Syria against Isis and Bashar al-Assad's 'murderous' regime | Americas | News | The Independent
Hillary Clinton wants to review US strategy in Syria against Isis and Bashar al-Assad's 'murderous' regime
The political will to oust the Syrian President has waned since the rise of Isis
Hillary Clinton plans to order a full review of the United States’ strategy in Syria as one of her first priorities if elected President.
One of her foreign policy advisers, Jeremy Bash, said she would seek to end Bashar al-Assad’s “murderous” regime despite waning political will to oust the autocratic Syrian President.
He said dealing with Syria would be Ms Clinton’s “first key task” if elected and she would work to get President Assad “out of there”.
“A Clinton administration will not shrink from making clear to the world exactly what the Assad regime is,” he told The Telegraph.
“It is a murderous regime that violates human rights; that has violated international law; used chemical weapons against his own people; has killed hundreds of thousands of people, including tens of thousands of children.

Barack Obama, David Cameron and international allies were vocal with their criticism of the Syrian government’s human rights abuses and war crimes at the start of the conflict in 2011 and the UK almost launched an intervention against Assad two years later.
But following the rise of the so-called Islamic State and links between its Syrian bases and attacks in France and Belgium, calls for the President’s removal have been drowned out by a move towards co-operation in the fight against global terrorism.

In a mark of decreasing hostility, the US and Russia – Assad’s staunch ally – were drawing up an agreement on bombing Jabhat al-Nusra, which has since attempted a re-brand disassociating itself from al-Qaeda.

Statements from the British government have continued to call for all perpetrators of war crimes to be held to account and for a “political settlement” in the form of a new, inclusive, government to secure long-term peace.

Echoing Angela Merkel and other European leaders, Ms Clinton has previously called for “safe zones” where displaced Syrian civilians can live without fear of attack, but methods of implementing them remain unclear.

Her campaign website also outlines policy on defeating Isis’ strongholds in Syria and Iraq by intensifying the coalition air campaign, and support for Arab and Kurdish allies on the ground.

Donald Trump, her Republican adversary, has made national security and immigration a key part of his campaign to reach the White House.

He calls his approach “America first” meaning alliances and coalitions would not pass muster unless they produced a net benefit to the US, drawing rebuke from security officials after suggesting he may not defend some Nato members.

While Mr Trump has accused Ms Clinton of presiding over “death, destruction, terrorism and weakness” at the State Department, she has hit back by accusing him of “losing his cool at the slightest provocation”, adding: “Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis. A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”

American voters will go to the polls on 8 November to elect the next President.
 
Top