Stepping Back From The News Of The Day.

And, stepping into the shoes of the other.

I agree with the majority of western observers that the culture clash with Islamists of the Muslim world, with a population 1.6 billion people, will not be won by military means. Wars against ideas seldom if ever are, including our own revolution that England tried to suppress with force of superior arms. Wars of intervention and regime change have been equally futile efforts and create a fertile ground for an extreme group's recruitment.

Starting with the crusades of the eleventh and twelfth century and continuing through the fifteenth and into the twentieth, ending with WW I, the Muslims controlled a wide swath of the world. That control was absorbed by the ascendent western-christian nations. The power shift included such niceties as exploitation of human and natural resources via empire building and colonization, New nations were formed and old nations were ruled by puppet rulers.

This statement was accepted back in the day by western power brokers and resented by those subjects.

“In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared; "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior races."

The Oil-Shah of Iran is a classic case in point of western overreach.

From Wikipedia:

“The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom and the United States.

Mossadegh had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now BP) and to change the terms of the company's access to Iranian oil reserves. Upon alleged refusal of the AIOC to cooperate with the Iranian government, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the assets of the company and expel their representatives from the country.

According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on 19 August. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city. Between 300 and 800 people were killed because of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Other Mosaddegh supporters were imprisoned, and several received the death penalty.”

National memories are long lasting. Fast forward to Iran in 1979 and beyond. Any questions?

Another pressure point, that is a primary Jihadist propaganda and agitation tool, is the state of affairs in the Israeli – Palestinian area. It appears to this poster that Israel is determined to to take over control of the entire west bank. Despite many false starts and a lot of lip service toward Palestinian statehood the goal seems further away as the years roll on and Israel continues to expand settlements in what is considered, by most countries, to be Palestine land.

“In 1980, Israel officially annexed East Jerusalem and considers the whole of Jerusalem to be its capital. The annexation was condemned internationally[12] and declared "null and void" by the United Nations Security Council. The Palestinian National Authority, the United Nations, the international legal and humanitarian bodies and the international community regard East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank, and consequently a part of the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian National Authority never exercised sovereignty over the area. Israeli sovereignty, however, has not been recognized by any country, since the unilateral annexation of territory occupied during war contravenes the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

How does that make Palestinians and their Muslim brothers view the countries that preach rule of law and human rights?

“American military officials were last night trying to explain one of their worst blunders during the nine-month war in Afghanistan after a US plane mistakenly targeted a house full of wedding guests, killing at least 30 of them.”

One could write a book or books on this situation and these three issues are but a tip of the international iceberg.

In my opinion we are an empathetic nation that truly want the best for the all the world's people including all the freedoms that we enjoy in our imperfect democracy. With that thought in mind we might consider using powers of persuasion to discourage what some might call hate speech.

“Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker.”

Caveat: The thoughts expressed in this essay do not negate the need for aggressive action to curtail or prevent harmful actions by the enemies of our nation no matter their motivation.

Paul Hunter