Islam Must Degrade And Destroy Islamic State
The impassioned plea by the father of a Jordanian F16 fighter pilot captured by Islamic State has shot down attempts by American President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to distance Islam from the Islamic State (ISIL)…writes David Singer.
Speaking to the media – the father of Islamic State’s star captive – 1st Lt. Mu’ath al-Kaseasbeh, – said:
“I direct a message to our generous brothers of the Islamic State in Syria: to host my son, the pilot Mu’ath, with generous hospitality. I ask God that their hearts are gathered together with love, and that he is returned to his family, wife and mother.
We are all Muslims.”
This desperate cry for mercy stands in stark contrast to what President Obama stressed at a media conference in August:
“Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice a different religion.
They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.”
Cameron has been equally as strident:
“We should be clear: this is not the “War on Terror”, nor is it a war of religions. It is a struggle for decency, tolerance and moderation in our modern world. It is a battle against a poisonous ideology that is condemned by all faiths and by all faith leaders, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim.”
Abbott was eager to support Obama and Cameron’s statements – telling a media conference during the Martin Place siege in Sydney last week:
“But the point I keep making is that the ISIL death cult has nothing to do with any religion, any real religion.”
These Presidential and Prime Ministerial statements had followed a most explicit condemnation of Islamic State by Iyad Ameen Madani – the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – the collective voice of the Muslim world – representing 57 countries over four continents comprising 1.4 billion Muslims – the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations.
As Vatican Radio reported on 25 July:
In a statement, he [Madani] officially denounced the “forced deportation under the threat of execution” of Christians, calling it a “crime that cannot be tolerated.” The Secretary General also distanced Islam from the actions of the militant group known as ISIS, saying they “have nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence.”
Yet the simple plea of one distraught Jordanian parent pleading for his son to be set free – stressing that “we are all muslims” – will certainly sheet home the distinct unease being felt by non-muslims living in Sydney – still reeling from the Lindt Chocolat Café siege and subsequent shoot out in Martin Place killing two innocent civilians and the self-styled Islamic cleric who perpetrated the siege.
Such unease subsequently found the head of the Australian Defence League and two other people being charged over a brawl near a mosque in Sydney’s Islamic heartland – Lakemba.
The news that Sulayman Khalid, 20, was one of two men arrested on Christmas Eve as part of an ongoing counter-terrorism investigation into the alleged planning of a terrorist attack on Australian soil – has only increased such unease.
As the Daily Telegraph reported:
“Khalid, also known as Abu Bakr, appeared earlier this year on SBS’s Insight wearing a jacket emblazoned with the Islamic State flag and stormed off the set when questioned about his support for IS fighters.”
France has this week also seen three supposedly “lone wolf” incidents allegedly involving “deranged” Muslim perpetrators in:
- Nantes – when a van was driven into a crowd killing one and wounding 9 other shoppers
- Dijon – where a man shouting “allahu akbar” (“God is greatest” in Arabic) injured 13 in a similar attack to that in Nantes
- Tours – where an attacker – also yelling “allahu akbar” – was shot dead after stabbing three police officers
Meaningless OIC condemnatory statements designed to distance Islam from Islamic State are no longer sufficient.
Surely the time has come for the OIC to galvanise its member States into pledging unified Islamic military action to degrade and destroy Islamic State.
Such steps could include:
- OIC resolving that all 57 member States join the American-led coalition of 62 States presently fighting Islamic State.
Presently only 13 of those Islamic States have joined the coalition. Major Islamic States – such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, Pakistan and Nigeria remain uncommitted.
- Making a unified Islamic approach to the United Nations Security Council by sponsoring a resolution calling for the use of armed force by the United Nations against Islamic State under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
Four Islamic States – Malaysia, Nigeria, Chad and Jordan – are members of the UN Security Council and provide an effective bloc to pressure the Security Council – particularly those States exercising a veto – into taking such action.
Growing Islamoparanoia needs to be contained – if rampant Islamophobia is not allowed to run riot.
David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network
Oh I now have a head ache, can anyone build a smart bomb and drop it on all terrorist. Sorry but I ‘ve been trying very hard to find the “peacefulness” that I hear so often about regarding the Muslim faith. All I see and hear is death and destruction. It’s a plgue taking over the world.
In general terms all comments listed here contain degrees of reasonable considerations and, in my view, all exceed beyond the feasible concrete measures suggested, while, once again, no one could possible question that the best intentions are more than obvious.
We all know too well that ALL islamic countries are at the behest of subterranean or quite overt extremist islamic forces threatening the existing order, ISIS territories excluded, of course.
ISIS is primarily a crisis for the islamic states, all members of the OIC. Direct confrontation with ANY contingent belonging to the general tenets of ISIS “ideology” , whether in ISIS space or in any of the mentioned islamic countries – that being all of them !!!- is NOT the strategy anyone would consider. To that extent, EVEN the overt joining of the forces already dedicated to fighting ISIS on their turf, contains serious germinal local civil problems. Turkey has reluctantly allowed some access, Jordan is now seriously questioning the “wisdom” of its involvement and those countries for which islamic sectarian siding allows open intervention – Iran – are doing it for reasons NOT applicable to other islamic countries.
USA, UK and Australia, to which we could easily expect France to be added, think first of their home grown and about to explode ISIS motivated destabilising – a mild term – elements to join in the internationalised “branch” of the ISIS proper movement. A joint consideration must be given also to the active presence of Western allies in the ME and the way they are perceived over there as inimical to islam per se.
We can be sure that a Tony Abbott is far from not harbouring strong feelings against the potential and tangible islamic threat in Australia, but I must refer persistently to the quality of the ostensive rhetoric Abbott and the others consider that must be used.
Paul
Your expressed views are entitled to be legitimately made – whilst OIC stands on the sidelines and does not commit its 57 members to join the American led coalition presently fighting Islamic State or take action at the UN Security Council to commit the UN to take military action against Islamic State.
My article was directed to pointing out the dangers of the views expressed by you and Gil dominating the political agenda – unless the OIC actually committed itself to action to degrade and destroy Islamic State.
Until OIC does so – the American-led coalition is digging a big hole for itself.
If OIC remains on the sidelines then we are all in for a very long, uncomfortable and unpleasant ride.
Gil’s “Flying Pig”theory is without any merit.
At this juncture, what David is suggesting is the only practical strategy.
David’s complete, unspecified notion of an amalgam of islamic states taking concerted concrete action – as in attacking centres of islamic “discontent” and eliminate the existing high pressure points – needs a proper geopolitical perspective .
– Indonesia may not engage in international overt drastic action against sources of islamic tension for the following reason: Indonesia is, by far, the best organised islamic country keeping under control its islamic authorities/clergy/institutions. A quasi military regime has been able to keep under control THROUGHOUT its modern history what in many other islamic countries such a control has been lost, hence the degrees of local instabilities, reaching critical conflict. This unique Indonesian apparent civil calm may not be jeopardise by drastic antireligious attitudes against locations of NO internal interest/relevance, but capable to instigate unwanted reactions locally. Malaysia is not far from it at all.
– Northern African islamic states have various degrees of civil balance and/or severe inbalance. Egypt is at a very delicate stage of wrestling , once again, lay political reign over a very powerful islamic clerical entity. Morocco is still keeping some semblance of order, although expat Morrocans have provided extreme islamists with reliable fighting reserves.
In larger terms, post colonial Northern Africa has had a relatively short period of civil governance, Algeria, Tunisia and even Libya, now seen all but severely depreciated . Lay governments of some kind of “socialist”, Baas, type have kept Iraq and Syria out of the religious extremist loop until we know what happened and still happening in Syria.
Gulf sponsored shades of islamism is kept at arm’s length, but only due to very fragile political “ethics”.
– Post Pahlavi Iran has fallen into some of the most pernicious religious variety of islamism, but it is worth remembering that, prior to the removal of the Shah, the same policy of denying religious authorities access to power was FUNCTIONING, albeit in a very deficient, abusive secret service control manner.
– Jordan is one of the most fragile morally reliable place in spite of the current occurrence in the fight against IS.
There are a lot more considerations which would preclude a solid “front” based on islamic cohesion capable to arriving at a reliable “moderate” islamic sensible universal forum cum political, let alone effective combative force. That is to say – somehow akin to Gil’s point – that statements to the effect of “condemnation” by any fora are totally ineffective.
We shall have to be pleased with peacemeal progresses in specific places at specific times. There are far too many juxtaposed hot points of idiosyncratic crises which need addressing in specific ways if any improvements in the fight against extremism is to be achieved. Otherwise, ANYONE can download some fantastic statements and satisfy the reading public that “sincere” intentions do exist.
Otto
One can claim reasons exist as to why one or other Islamic States want to keep out of the fight against Islamic State.
However OIC has fitted them all to subscribing to the the view that Islamic State is quite separate and apart from Islam – a view adopted by Obama, Cameron and Abbott.
If some Islamic States do not agree – they should make those views known.
The non-muslim States are surely entitled to know – and demand – where each Muslim State stands on Islamic State – as they contribute men, money and armaments against Islamic State in a conflict that seems set to long a last time.
David, I cannot believe that you were serious when you concluded by writing “Growing Islamoparanoia needs to be contained – if rampant Islamophobia is not allowed to run riot.” No-one is being paranoid by worrying what another votary of the religion of peace will do. And islamophobia is a rubbish term to silence all who are so non-PC as to note what an ugly, vicious, hateful pseudo-religion islam really is.
You also fail to note what a disgusting apologist for mohammadanism the traitor to Western values Barack Hussein really is. ISIL is led by a doctor of religious law and what is practised is pure islam. Barack Hussein is – as usual – lying. He knows full well what that merciless primitive cult in which he was raised really is.
Vatican radio broadcast the lies of of the Secretary General of the OIC. That statement is as duplicitous as was the condemnation of Monis the Martin Place murderer. All those statements are meant to blind us to the true face and methods of pure islam.
Your recommendation is useless. The UN will not act against jihadis. It failed to act against them in Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan. One would not even expect them to act against any of Saudi Arabia’s, Qatar’s or Iran’s funding of proxies waging war on Jews, a war the “civilised” West cheers from the sidelines.
The simple fact it that as long as the scholars of Al Azhar, Deobandi and Qoms fail to declare ISIS a heresy, it and others like it will flourish. And those scholars will not condemn ISIS because they know full well that Abu Bakr an Baghdadi is practising the pure “religion” of the PROFIT. What is worse is that the Jewish people are cursed by leaders who fail to speak out against that primitive fascism which murders anyone who points out that it is not a religion.
Paul
You need to convince Obama, Cameron and Abbott – not me.
Whilst the OIC sits back and does nothing – these leaders of the free world are going to look exceedingly irrelevant.
You state the UN will not act against Jihadis. In fact the Security Council already has with two Chapter VII resolutions.
The problem is they have not gone far enough in that they have failed to order military action against Islamic State.
The American-led coalition is left to wage a fight that has no international sanction behind it. This needs to be changed if the American-led coalition is not to again end in the quagmire that saw the non-Muslim world undertake horrible ventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.
OIC participation should be made a mandatory condition – and soon.
David, I am not trying to convince anyone, I am simply stating my analysis of the matter.
I have no access to those high and mighty world “leaders” that you mention. I am just expressing my frustration that the Jews who fight to get into leadership positions fail to fight our enemies, instead focusing their combativeness on Jews who question the wisdom of their do nothing, suck up to protectors, ghetto tactics.
Thanks for letting us know that Mon Kee Boon (that worthy success to Goofy Anan, the do nothing UN boss on whose watch the Rwandan genocide took place), has organised not one, but TWO chapter VII rulings against ISIL. Somehow you forgot to mention how many peacekeepers were dispatched. Or weren’t they ever raised? Or were the Chapter VIIs enough to scare ISIL from the path of jihad?
Dear Paul
you are so bloody right about Jewish communal leaders and I mean principally in Australia. They project the image of being active on the political front in a variety of fields, from Federal to sate to inter-communal harmony tango show offs when, in fact, reality unfolds proving that all those magnificent photo opportunities, speeches, letters to editors, MP, bishops, cardinals, even legal cases WON in spectacular fashion , all that, as you put it fontos valaki ( good Hungarian),amounts to bugger all in tangible ways. Eevents occur IN SPITE of the grandstanding of the groisse macher circus. What really pisses me off is that the same ones would not lower their standings by EVER engaging in the kind of discussions we are having here. It is a tightly guarded protocol of someone in the stratosphere of selfimportance NOT to engage in any social media dialectics. To mine it simply shows how vane and devoid of substance they are, how incapable of sustaining a rational discussion beyond repeating what most often are just torrents of tautologies; trust me, I have been practicing/noticing this for far too long.
To this extent, you are absolutely right about any head of organisations formed with the intention of building and sustaining almost impregnable smoke screens of ineptitude, United Nations being exceedingly at the top of the list. Mr. Annan or Mr. Moon might as well reside on the Moon as far as their concrete relevance, that is if you can bloody well understand half of what that bloke is sayin’ in the first place. Simply put , who could possibly consider that ISIS would give a stuff about anything uttered in any chat room of irrelevance !! Bombing the shite out of them with or without the express approval of any international body is the only way to satisfy any decent discussion on the topic.
BUEK to yourse all !!!! ( Hungarian once again, and final for 2014 meaning Happy New Year !!!, otto in Perpignan/France ( 6 degrees Celsius )
Paul
If you had read my post more carefully you would have noted the following comment about the two UN Chapter V11 resolutions:
“The problem is they have not gone far enough in that they have failed to order military action against Islamic State.”
Such a resolution remains the key to degrading and destroying Islamic State.
Sorry to intercede, David, but we are having a fairly serious military intervention right now against the islamic state without any specific approval by any Int’l body. We could assume that the UN is in an”ideological” bent whereby it does not want to be seen as encouraging the new epidemic catch-phrase “islamophobia” as a twisted interpretation, of course.I think that it is enough that nobody in the same “league” of international fora is condemning the current military anti ISIS intervention.
Otto
Wish I was as sure as you about the military response to Islamic State.
US Secretary of State Kerry gave this assessment in September last:
“We’re convinced that in the days ahead we have the ability to destroy ISIL,” Kerry said Friday in Wales, where he was attending a NATO summit along with U.S. President Barack Obama. “It may take a year, it may take two years, it may take three years. But we’re determined it has to happen.”
That doesn’t sound like “a serious military intervention” to me.
Getting really serious involves a UN Security Council resolution mandating military action that obliges all members to comply with its terms.
Pin pricks on the elephant’s hide do not a victory make.
David
I am of the opinion that the statement you mentioned is cautiously realistic on several accounts.
a- if a cocky, “mission accomplished!!” or nearly so statement of the premature emasculation of reality would have been made, then, as long as the “mission” would not be accomplished, the enemy would boast that THEY have won, the typical PR of the same kind we saw at Hamas just a few months ago, when they called it their victory simply because they are (barely) still standing.
b- NATO alone is quite enough and far more reliable, not to mention a lot easier/convenient to have at the commanding top than soe UN lead “coalition” with a command centre nowhere as favourable/easy to control.
c- being at the behest of the UN would, inevitably, interfere with the entire strategy and tactics of the conflict against ISIS, also in terms of the duration of the action. The efficiency of the operation is far more important than the “visible” support by a coterie of nations WITHOUT a common ideology/strategy on the matter.
d- I must repeat myself that the ostensive, public attitude against anything with the “islam” in it is carries problems in as far as the term would be ( and it is ) used by not so occult forces supporting ideologies akin to ISIS itself, however varied.
Finally, this anti ISIS military campaign is, in terms of the size/capacity of the enemy, NOT such a great/difficult contingent to dispose of in military terms. The size of the forces already seriously involved should give sufficient assurance that the conflict can only be concluded in favour of OUR side. The residual conflict will last a lot longer, but the field clearing exercise is bound to end with ISIS formally being obliterated from the territories currently in conflict, under ISIS control.
Without being excessively cynical, when and where did the UN EVER show its active efficiency !!!!
Otto
Care to evaluate your thoughts in the light of the events in France over the past few days?
International military action through the UN Security Council remains the only effective action to combat groups like Islamic State and Al Qaeda.
Pious words of condolence and condemnation and Mickey Mouse illegally constituted coalitions are not enough.
Every member State of the UN needs to stand up and be counted in taking concerted international military action to eradicate these terrorist groups.
Failure to do so will assuredly confirm the UN to be nothing but a hoax on humanity.
Dear David
I am today in Barcelona for a few days, but I was in France at the time of the massacre and followed the events and the ensuing multiple reactions in the media.
I will nor part with any impressions about the excessively visible “multicultural” landscape in France, suffice to say that, as far as the local “conundrums” are concerned, dealing with the islamic issues in France is a massive unmanageable multiplication compared to Australia and many other Western countries. UK #1, France #2 etc.
The buzz word in the wake of the predicted/inevitable ( and I listed France as well as the type of those tragic occurrences many time right here) is ” AMALGAM”.
Amalagam reffers here to
Dear David
I am currently in Barcelona for a short while, but I was in France at the time of the tragic events and gripped by the horror that struck a seemingly paralysed met decent and splendid place.
The torrent of comments one observes at the local media attempt to extract some rationale in terms of necessary reaction. One buzz word related to the complexity of the French ethno-political reality is “AMALGAM”.
AMALGAM is used here in expressing the conundrum of the necessity of differentiating in real terms, terms which allow effective measures, the pernicious “side” of islam from the necessarily acceptable ones, as a viable part of a complex, democratic and, most importantly, decent society.
Needless to say that one of the first reactions was the public appearance of a number of islamic leaders condemning the barbarous act. I won’t go into the banalities of the choreographed choruses of multipole religious representatives holding the banner of …unity nut the classic spirits exhausted historically right here during “that” Revolution…. Suffice to say that our bloke wearing a yarmulke kept stumm , did not engage into and emotional physical contacts with anyone and looked properly enveloped in what we may call rachmunes on account of knowing who on first when it comes to terror in France…..
Simply put this superb civilisation is in serious merge…NO ONE is safe and no one could guess who’s going to carbon copy at any scale the “Charlie Hebdo” massacre. Shortly after the tragedy President Hollande came out on the street in the middle of HIS own Paris and you could see body guards, those alert 6’6″ blokes permanently keeping their hawkish gaze on the upper sides of the surrounding buildings for they know that , as I said, merge just happens, particularly when you DO expect it.
Most dialogues on numerous TV channels deal with a myriad of angles and quite a few sound desperately appeasing, insinuating that , at this juncture the “amalgam” has acquired explosive properties regardless how kindly one handles the “item”. The non islamic French has no choice but face a reality which acts on rules France has not considered since it decided to take the road of an enlighten society.
In strategic terms islamism has won a big battle in France Tuesday morning at approx. 11 a.m. From now on anyone NOT conforming with some well publicised mohamedan principles does it at his/her own risk. How could ANY muslim leader, no matter how harshly critical of these abominable crimes NOT agree that NOT making the slightest critical allusion to “some” percepts sacred in islam, including the most abhorrent creed/statements/practices is NOT convenient to the faith !!! Those criminals clearly said that ” Mohamed has been avenged !!!” Could any muslim cleric NOT agree that Mohamed requires respect , observance, defence etc !!!! And, subsequently, didn’t those criminals provide islam a valuable service !!!! Slogans aside, France is no longer want she was last Monday ….
The expected tough, uncompromising retort came from that blonde daughter of her father from the same La Penn clan. No mincing in what she dished out.
To mine, there is no conventional force applicable in such an overwhelming compost of unwanted ingredients, while also mentioning that the fight against such more easily identifiable entities as ISIS or Hamas carries quite distinct strategies however intimate the relationship between the local French phenomena and its BIGGER siblings found in the specific sands of the Middle East.
David, I’m little confused by your article to try and understand how you are trying to shape discussion. To think that ISIS is not the near complete manifestation of Islam is simply naive. The only reason you have Muslim nations as part of the coalition is simply because they are either scared witless about losing their own turf, or they see ISIS as not the true Caliphate that Muslims are all looking for.
Obama is a Muslim and by action has added and abetted Muslim terror world wide. There are a multitude of articles and investigations to show this. It’s just that the White house is now so infiltrated by Islam, one wonders if it can ever be redeemed.
Our own prime minister says what he does to placate Obama and keep votes in Muslim and left leaning electorates. I simply don’t believe he and other ministers don’t know ISIS is ISLAM despite what they say.
What we are talking about is ideology. Pure and simple. The Muslim faith is based upon the Koran and Haddiths. Christianity is based upon the Bible. Each claim the texts to be authoritative. THIS IS THE ONLY BASIS for the ideas in each faith. ANYTHING else is simply made up.
Yes, much of what people call Christianity is simply made up. It’s not based upon the biblical text. What we see from ISIS and the near world wide rise of Islamic supremacy is in line with the written texts of Islam. Those claiming otherwise are either lying or mis-informed. A classic way of catching this is to hear what Islamic preachers say in English to a western audience, and what they preach in Arabic to their faithful followers. Thanks to translation services, you can see they lie through their teeth. (Just as detailed in the Islamic texts)
Islam will never Degrade And Destroy Islamic State because it is essentially walking the talk of Islamic Texts and Islam itself. What will happen is Turkey (who has been aiding and protecting ISIS) will eventually take over, bringing Sunni and Shia sides under a new Caliphate based in Turkey. ISIS is simply doing the dirty work.
What we need is discussion on how to attack an evil ideology without dehumanising those caught up in it. Trying to argue that ‘ISIS does not equal ISLAM’ is not just obviously stupid, it deceptive and essentially aides Islamic Supremacy. Australians aren’t stupid. They know what’s going on, those who bother to do some basic research.
I happen to believe both the bible and the Koran are ‘authoritative’ in that they are divinely inspired. The Bible by the God of Israel and the Koran by Lucifer himself. I believe the Bible to be perfect and the Koran counterfeit. The adversary hates the God of Israel, he hates Jews, he hates Christians, he hates women and hates all mankind in that order. His religion of choice, (although I might add not the only one) is Islam. It’s Islam calling for the annihilation of the Jews, it’s Islam calling on people to convert, submit or die and it’s Islam committed to ‘world peace’ under the repression of Islamic Law. It’s being played out before our eyes every hours of every day.
It’s time to start seeing clearly.
With respect
Eric
Erich
Sorry that you – like Gil – also appear confused.
I am simply pointing to the fact that Obama,Cameron and Abbott are all on record as stating that Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam – the same position taken by the 57 member States of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
You can point out that their viewpoints are a load of codswallop – but these people still remain in positions of power to make decisions that have far reaching effect – and do so on the publicly expressed opinions that I have pointed out.
One is therefore entitled to ask why OIC has not thrown its weight behind the American led coalition fighting Islamic State or sought to present a unified Islamic response to the UN Security Council demanding it resolve to take military action against Islamic State.
Maybe I am naive in taking the words of the American President, the British Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister at face value.
Certainly as events are being played out in America, Britain and Australia – the claims of their respective leaders are looking exceedingly removed from reality and there is increasing evidence that they have displayed very poor lack of judgement.
OIC needs to come to their rescue to salvage the political judgement of our leaders by entering the fray and confronting Islamic State head on – not sit on the sidelines doing nothing but issuing mere condemnations.
If OIC fails to do so – I would expect our leaders to consider changing their tack and not allow themselves to be played for fools by 57 Islamic States that are not prepared to put their military and diplomatic resources where their mouths are.
Eric
you are digressing way out of essentials. Our current international crisis caused by ISIS and other similar islamic factions is not a religious one in as far as Xtianity or other faiths, take Budhism for instance are posed against. It simply (!!!!) a necessary international call to stave off a certain excessive application of islam over a variety of political entities, at this stage islamic states themselves. I gave Egypt as a potential casualty and, if anyone has followed the events in Cairo in tha pest 5 years, we have seen a correction of islamic excesses at the hands of… also an islamic military regime for Sisi is neither Xtian nor anything else, but a muslim himself. Obama would not explicitly use terms such as ” defending Judeo-Xiatian values” although leading a country where “correct” political rhetoric is awash with religious and quasi-religious phrase. Cameron, himself at the helm of a country well stuffed with muslims, most of whom with serious agressive predilections, also avoids a comparative religious laden vernacular, precisely because, like all others, they are hoping – in politics EVERYTHING relies on hope – to “educate” HIS mulsims into a spirit of British, if you like, civil decency. The only prevalent reference to religion as such in the discourse we are disecting here is islam in an attempt by the most decent nations to ADJUST it to OUR Western Values.
THIS IS the principal tenet of what we should discuss – me thinks.
Otherwise, comparative analysis of religions can be carried on as an academic appendix.
with the same respect
Otto
P.S.
We must respect David Singer’s highly respected vocation – by now – of insisting in his long standing endeavours on addressing international fora on matters important to our interests. He is doing the job of ALL other organisations we have lost long ago any hope of knowing what the hell they are supposed/expected to do.
David,
In spite of all that has happened even over just the last two years your articles keep quoting who said what to whom and when but your conclusions and gut instinct in respect to reality are constantly beyond belief. They have as much chance of seeing the light of day as the chance that some day pigs will fly.
Your comment: “Surely the time has come for the OIC to galvanise its member States into pledging unified Islamic military action to degrade and destroy Islamic State” is just pie in the sky wishful thinking.
Gil
I think you are misconstruing my conclusions – so let me make my analysis perfectly clear.
Obama, Cameron and Abbott have had the courage of their convictions – as expressed by them and identified by me in my article – to go out and actively confront Islamic State at great risk to the civilian populations living in America, Great Britain and Australia – having obviously accepted the OIC’s stated position that Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam.
As events unfold in America, Britain and Australia – this OIC claim – accepted by our leaders – is becoming more questionable every day.
To reinforce the views of our political leaders and the OIC itself – the OIC cannot continue to hide behind the skirts of the American led coalition and not join in obliging all its members to likewise join in ridding the Islamic world of this OIC declared non-Islamic scourge.
Whilst OIC stands on the sidelines offering nothing but meaningless words as it sees its own members – Jordan, Iraq and currently suspended Syria – being put to the torch right now – people in non-OIC states are going to experience increasing feelings of paranoia that they – from their leaders down – are being taken for a ride – as increasing attacks by muslims perpetrators within non-OIC countries destroy the idea that there is indeed a difference between Islam and Islamic State.
I am surprised that you do not agree – but of course you are entitled to your opinion.
David, Gil is not just offering his opinion. He is in contact with reality and analyses that.
Your comment about the OIC ridding itself of the non-Islamic scourge is utter codswallop. ISIS is practising the pure Islam of Mohammed and all observant mohammedans know that, Barack Hussein included. Further, the OIC knows full well that its Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are prominent supporters of ISIS and Iran supports Shi’is and Allawites opposed to it.
They only voice opposition to ISIS’s barbarities to make Islam acceptable to the world. And political leaders do not have the courage of their convictions, because their intelligence sources apprise them of terror threats. They only have the courage to defy reality and spout PC pap for electoral advantage.