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