Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:55 am Post subject: Eschatology in the 21st century: Interfaith/Comparitive
ESCHATOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY : INTERFAITH AND COMPARITIVE PERSPECTIVES
As we are going deeper and deeper into another space time consciousness.
I am pleased on behalf of Global Vision 2000 to share new directions on our work.
Watch out for the post this evening as it is a declaration of where we are at and where we are heading as the human species.
Moeen Yaseen
Last edited by moeen yaseen on Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:10 pm; edited 5 times in total
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:24 pm Post subject: Eschatology in the 21st century:Interfaith and Comparitive
GLOBAL VISION 2000 ROUNDTABLE
ESCHATOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY : INTERFAITH AND COMPARITIVE PERSPECTIVES
Saturday April 2 2016 AD/ 1437 AH
London
SETTING THE SCENE
The crisis of global human civilisation has been encapsulated and documented by various global institutions, writers, thinkers to date from different religious and ideological perspectives. Given the convergence of a multiplicity of crises especially environmental, ecological, political and economic and the growing momentum towards a WW3 it was deemed essential to look over the horizon by stepping into the past and understand, clarify, contrast what the different faith and secular traditions had to say on the subject of eschatology. The status of this topic is fragmented in officialdom and subject to different interpretations and sharp divisions at an intrafaith level. Yet the subject matter has always been there and holds a powerful hold on the imagination of billions globally. Also with the seemingly demise of secular ideologies such as capitalist and communist orientation there is a rise in end time apocalyptic movements from different traditions seeking solutions outwith conventional party politics and manifestoes. There is also evidence that the powers that be have been tapping into this and manipulating these tendencies for their own ends. In order to deal comprehensively with this theme there is a need for an interdisciplinary approach as it covers theology, religious history, current affairs, politics and economics. It deals with end time, global hope and salvation, heroes and villains, conflict and peace as well as understanding the Deep State, the Occult , NWO and the Age of Propaganda and Deceit.
Eschatology is defined as part of theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity. This concept is commonly referred to as the "end of the world" or "end time". The word arises from the Greek words meaning "last" and "the study of", first used in English around 1550. The Oxford English Dictionary defines eschatology as "The department of theological science concerned with ‘the four last things: death, judgment, heaven and hell’. In the context of mysticism, the phrase refers metaphorically to the end of ordinary reality and reunion with the Divine. In many religions it is taught as an existing future event prophesied in sacred texts or folklore. More broadly, eschatology may encompass related concepts such as the Messiah or Messianic Age, the end time, and the end of days.
History is often divided into "ages" (aeons), which are time periods each with certain commonalities. One age comes to an end and a new age or world to come, where different realities are present, begins. When such transitions from one age to another are the subject of eschatological discussion, the phrase, "end of the world", is replaced by "end of the age", "end of an era", or "end of life as we know it". Much apocalyptic fiction does not deal with the "end of time" but rather with the end of a certain period of time, the end of life as it is now, and the beginning of a new period of time. It is usually a crisis that brings an end to current reality and ushers in a new way of living, thinking, or being. This crisis may take the form of the intervention of a deity in history, a war, a change in the environment, or the reaching of a new level of consciousness. Most modern eschatology and apocalypticism, both religious and secular, involve the violent disruption or destruction of the world; whereas Abrahamic eschatologies view the end times as the consummation or perfection of God's creation of the world. In which the world began with God and is constantly headed toward God’s final goal for creation, which is the world to come. Eschatologies vary as to their degree of optimism or pessimism about the future. In some eschatologies, conditions are better for some and worse for others.
AIMS
Questions to be addressed-
What is the nature, sources and beliefs of eschatology in the eschaton of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and other traditions?
Are there any commonalities and what are the differences?
What are the implications of eschatology for Human civilisation and World Justice and Peace?
How is this impacting these communities of faith and secularism in terms of preparedness? In terms of agreement, consensus and strategic planning.
Is eschatology being manipulated in the Age of Deceit by the powers that be and how to redress this ?
ETHOS
The Roundtable is envisaged to be a means of bringing leading independent thinkers for Informal discussions of problems to create a better understanding of the ideas, forces and trends affecting humanity. Through direct exchanges to clear up differences and misunderstandings that might weaken peaceful human co-existence. Presentations of upto 30
minutes in duration will be given and all speakers are expected to participate in the all day event in order to create understanding. There will be no strict rules of procedure governing the meeting in order that a relaxed, informal atmosphere conducive to free and frank discussion is facilitated. The Roundtable in no sense a policymaking body. There is no voting and no attempt to reach or adopt resolutions. All individuals are pre-screened and invited in a personal capacity . An invitation only event for individuals who have a track record of research and/or advocacy on the principle of primus inter pares.
The initial stage of this process will be on an interfaith and secularist traditions only event and this stage will exclude any Government, IGO or Banking, Corporate/MNC or mainstream media perspectives.
AGENDA
ESCHATOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY : INTERFAITH AND COMPARITIVE PERSPECTIVES
MORNING SESSION
INTRODUCTION Global Vision 2000 Moeen Yaseen
SECULAR PERSPECTIVES
ZIONIST UTOPIA Ministry of Peace Dr.James Thring
JERUSALEM, BLAKE AND THE ANGLOSAXON TRADITION
Big Blake Project Rachel Searle
GLOBAL STRUCTURAL ELITE Criticalthinking.org Clive Menzies
DISCUSSION
CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES
Christian Council of Monetary Justice Dr.Simon Mouatt
World Vision Chawkat Moucarry
AFTERNOON SESSION
ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES
Islamic Party of GB Daud Pidcock
Hizb al Tahrir Yahya Nisbet
Khoei Foundation Seyed Jaafar Milani standing in for Ayatollah Dr.Milani
Last edited by moeen yaseen on Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:08 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:05 pm Post subject: BEHIND THE HEADLINES
BEHIND THE HEADLINES http://ahlulbayt.tv/live/
Moeen Yaseen Global Vision 2000 and Clive Menzies Critical Thinking on the Current Affairs programme Behind the Headlines on Ahlulbayt Satllite Tv channel on Friday 22 July 2016 2000- 2130 http://ahlulbayt.tv/live/
Akhir Az Zaman or end times is the science and knowledge of end times. This is essential research and viewing and is in the process of being arranged chronologically to cover all suitable and appropriate videos available on the internet to date.
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:39 am Post subject: Eschatology in the 21st century:Interfaith and Comparitive
ESCHATOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY:
INTERFAITH AND COMPARITIVE PERSPECTIVES
Saturday 3 December 2016 AD/ 1438 AH
Imam Khoei Islamic Centre
Chevening Road, London NW6 6TN
GLOBAL VISION 2000 CONFERENCE
in association with
THE AL-KHOEI FOUNDATION
ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH MUSLIMS
CO-FAITH COUNCIL OF MONETARY JUSTICE
SETTING THE SCENE
The crisis of global human civilisation has been encapsulated and documented by various global institutions, writers, thinkers to date from different religious and ideological perspectives. Given the convergence of a multiplicity of crises especially environmental, ecological, political and economic and the growing momentum towards a WW3 it was deemed essential to look over the horizon by stepping into the past and understand, clarify, contrast what the different faith and secular traditions had to say on the subject of eschatology. The status of this topic is fragmented in officialdom and subject to different interpretations and sharp divisions at an intrafaith level. Yet the subject matter has always been there and holds a powerful hold on the imagination of billions globally. Also with the seemingly demise of secular ideologies such as capitalist and communist orientation there is a rise in end time apocalyptic movements from different traditions seeking solutions outwith conventional party politics and manifestoes. There is also evidence that the powers that be have been tapping into this and manipulating these tendencies for their own ends. In order to deal comprehensively with this theme there is a need for an interdisciplinary approach as it covers theology, religious history, current affairs, politics and economics. It deals with end time, global hope and salvation, heroes and villains, conflict and peace as well as understanding the Deep State, the Occult , NWO and the Age of propaganda and deceit.
Eschatology is defined as part of theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity. This concept is commonly referred to as the "end of the world" or "end time". The word arises from the Greek words meaning "last" and "the study of", first used in English around 1550. The Oxford English Dictionary defines eschatology as "The department of theological science concerned with ‘the four last things: death, judgment, heaven and hell’. In the context of mysticism, the phrase refers metaphorically to the end of ordinary reality and reunion with the Divine. In many religions it is taught as an existing future event prophesied in sacred texts or folklore. More broadly, eschatology may encompass related concepts such as the Messiah or Messianic Age, the end time, and the end of days.
History is often divided into "ages" (aeons), which are time periods each with certain commonalities. One age comes to an end and a new age or world to come, where different realities are present, begins. When such transitions from one age to another are the subject of eschatological discussion, the phrase, "end of the world", is replaced by "end of the age", "end of an era", or "end of life as we know it". Much apocalyptic fiction does not deal with the "end of time" but rather with the end of a certain period of time, the end of life as it is now, and the beginning of a new period of time. It is usually a crisis that brings an end to current reality and ushers in a new way of living, thinking, or being. This crisis may take the form of the intervention of a deity in history, a war, a change in the environment, or the reaching of a new level of consciousness. Most modern eschatology and apocalypticism, both religious and secular, involve the violent disruption or destruction of the world; whereas Abrahamic eschatologies view the end times as the consummation or perfection of God's creation of the world. In which the world began with God and is constantly headed toward God’s final goal for creation, which is the world to come. Eschatologies vary as to their degree of optimism or pessimism about the future. In some eschatologies, conditions are better for some and worse for others.
AIMS
Questions to be addressed-
What is the nature, sources and beliefs of eschatology in the eschaton of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and other traditions?
Are there any commonalities and what are the differences?
What are the implications of eschatology for Human civilisation and World Justice and Peace?
How is this impacting these communities of faith and secularism in terms of preparedness?
In terms of agreement, consensus and strategic planning.
Is eschatology being manipulated in the Age of Deceit by the powers that be and how to redress this ?
Role of Jerusalem in eschaton
ETHOS
The conference is envisaged to be a means of bringing leading independent thinkers for discussion of problems to create a better understanding of the ideas, forces and trends affecting humanity. Through direct exchanges to clear up differences and misunderstandings
that might weaken peaceful human co-existence. Presentations will be given and all speakers are expected to participate in the all day event in order to create a mosaic of understanding.
There will be no strict rules of procedure governing the conference in order that a relaxed, atmosphere conducive to free and frank discussion is facilitated. In no sense is it a policymaking body. There is no voting and no attempt to reach or adopt resolutions. All individuals are invited in a personal capacity. An invitation only event for individuals who have a track record of research or advocacy on the principle of primus inter pares. The initial stage of this process will be on an interfaith and secularist traditions only event.
Conference held at Imam Khoei Islamic Centre: “Eschatology in the 21st century: interfaith and comparative perspectives”
December 6, 2016
http://en.shafaqna.com/news/40380
SHAFAQNA – Global Vision 2000 the independent UK Islamic think tank held a special one day conference on, “ Eschatology in the 21st century: interfaith and comparative perspectives” at the Imam Khoei Islamic centre in London.
In terms of its work on moving towards the Universal paradigm shift leading British Shia, Sunni, Christian and secular scholars, theologians, academics and political activists presented their research on various aspects of eschatology.
The event enabled perspectives from the disciplines of theology, history, political economy, geopolitics, peace, interfaith and future studies to be articulated publicly for the first time.
These included Dr.Yaqub Zaki, Shaikh Dr. Ramzy, Clive Menzies,Tony Gosling, Ayatollah Milani, Daud Pidcock, Reverend Nadim Nassar and Dr.Simon Mouatt.
In this conference Ayatollah Milani spoke about “The End of Time, Prosperity or Destruction?”
In his paper Ayatollah Milani differentiated between two stages: Before emergence of Al Mahdi a.s and after that significant event.
As for the period before the appearance of al Mahdi a.s. the following signs have been mentioned:
Wars/destruction/huge number of people will perish as a result of war. Some ahadith mention that two third will perish and one third will survive White death and red death. The first one refers to contagious disease spreading rapidly, in the past it was mainly plague, now a days many other diseases are known. Red death refers to bloodshed
The approach of black flags from the East. In the past it was interpreted for Abbasid density and nowadays ISIS try to interpret it in their favor
Dissipation of established moral convictions.
Logic and wisdom being suppressed by whims and desires.
As for the period after the appearance of Imam Mahdi a.s. Ayatollah Milani mentioned the following:
World will witness justice in every aspect of life.
Whims and desires will be controlled by wisdom and divine guidance
Enhancement of intellectual abilities
No poverty seen anywhere
Disappearance of clash of interests. Harmony and peaceful co-existence will govern
Emergence of Imam Mahdi will coincide with the descent of Jesus.
The framework to explore eschatology in the 21st century was approached
from an interdisciplinary, interfaith and comparative basis which lays the foundations for further research, study, contemplation and action.
Moeen Yaseen the Managing Director of Global Vision 2000 stated that “eschatology is a science and we can only see the contemporary world from eschatological perspective”. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:29 pm Post subject:
The BBC's rather poor attempt today on BBC Radio 3
'Academic' Eleanor Rosamund Barraclough from Durham University's a funny one Thinks Meggido's in Syria
While the Obama Administration and the CIA officially cling to the fig leaf lie that US intelligence was innocent of any involvement in the failed July 15 coup d’ etat attempt by the CIA-run Fethullah Gülen organization in Turkey, the truth is coming out from senior US intelligence insiders themselves. It reflects a huge internal faction struggle within US leading circles in what by all accounts is shaping to be the most bizarre Presidential election year in American history.
The first admission that US intelligence had their hand in the anti-Erdogan coup, a coup launched just days after Erdogan announced a major strategic shift away from NATO and towards Russia, came from Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski is one of the most senior members of the US intelligence establishment, a former Obama Presidential adviser and former National Security Council architect of the Jimmy Carter 1979 Mujahideen Afghanistan terror operations against the Soviet forces in that country.
In a Twitter tweet from his own blog, Brzezinski wrote a precis of a new article he wrote for The American Interest magazine. He writes, “The US backing of the attempted coup against the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was a grave mistake that could deliver a major blow to the US reputation.” That’s definitely putting it mildly given what’s unfolding in Turkey since July 15.
Brzezinski went on to write, “Turkey was on the verge of reconsidering its foreign policy after failure in the Syria during the last five years, and the US miscalculation in supporting the coup and hosting its leader (Fethullah Gülen, now in CIA-arranged exile in Pennsylvania-w.e.) was so serious that it is no longer possible to put the blame on once-US-ally Turkey if it turns its back on US and rethink (sic) its policies.” He continues, “A potential Russia-Turkey-Iran coalition would create an opportunity to solve the Syrian crisis. If Erdogan had the smallest bit of wisdom, he should have come to the understanding that he could not make an independent credibility with the help of some ‘decayed’ Arab countries,” no doubt referring to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the prime financiers of the Syrian terror war against Assad since 2011.
Brzezinski, who together with Henry Kissinger was one of the foremost US foreign policy strategists of the postwar period, the founding Executive Director of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, and one who still today presumably retains Top Secret clearance access to US intelligence reports, was expressing his fury at the utter incompetence of US intelligence in managing the Turkey relationship. Notably, the person in the US State Department directly responsible for not only the disastrous US coup in February, 2014 in Ukraine, but also for Turkey, is the hapless neo-con perpetual warrior-ess, Victoria “* the EU” Nuland, wife of neo-con Robert Kagan.
Brzezinski’s candid critique was followed up by an even more detailed expose of US intelligence ties to Fethullah Gülen, charged by the Turkish government with treason and backing the July 15 coup. In a guest article in the EU online mgazine EurActiv.com dated 17 August, 2016, Arthur H. Hughes confirms the intimate links between Gülen and the CIA, noting that “Gülen fled to the US with the assistance of the diplomat Morton Abramovitz, CIA agents Graham Fuller and George Fidas, and the above-mentioned Fr. Alexander Karloutsos.”
Gülen CIA friend Bartholomew I
Hughes’ article is a bombshell in many respects, and most definitely in his detailing of the intimate ties between the CIA, Gülen and the current Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, current Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch. Hughes described the above-mentioned Father Alexander Karloutsos:
“…one of the members of the American-Israeli lobby in the Constantinople Patriarchate is Father Alexander Karloutsos, Public Affairs Officer close to Archbishop Demetrios (of America-w.e.). Thanks to his ties with high-level officials and Greek-American billionaires, he is basically the only person who controls the money flows from the US to the Phanar (the Greek Orthodox part of Istanbul-w.e.), and that gives him wide possibilities of exerting pressure upon the Ecumenical Patriarchate. On the other hand, Karloutsos is also in good relations with former CIA Director George Tenet, and with the preacher Fethullah Gülen cooperating with the American intelligence.”
George Tenet, a close ally of the Clinton political machine is a Greek-American former head of CIA during the time of Bill Clinton and also George W. Bush. The Clintons are both on record praising Fethullah Gülen. It seems to be a cozy network of CIA-Gülen-Constantinople Patriarchate-Clintons, all financed with “money from Greek-American billionaires.”
Arthur H. Hughes is not a casual commentator on events in Turkey and the Middle East. He was US Ambassador to Yemen in the 1990’s during the Clinton Presidency, then Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. He also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asia, and was Deputy Chief of Mission in Tel Aviv. His linking of Gülen to the CIA and to the Constantinople Patriarchate points to one of the least-public and most influential covert CIA-run networks in the world, the anti-Moscow Orthodox Patriarchate of Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople. Hughes suggests that if Erdogan and the Turkish government are serious about dealing with future coup threats, they should put the Constintanople Patriarchate under the magnifying glass.
As I’ve documented in my book, The Lost Hegemon: Whom the gods would destroy, Graham E. Fuller and George Fidas, both decades-long senior CIA officials managed to secure an extraordinary permanent residence in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania, over the loud formal objections of the US State Department, in 1999, when Gülen was about to be charged by the Turkish authorities for inciting treason.
Most recently, Fuller felt compelled to write on his blog that, indeed he did help Gülen obtain a US green card, but that no, Gülen was not behind the failed July 15 coup. However Turkish reports place Fuller and another senior CIA ally, Henri J. Barkey, at a luxury hotel on one of the Princes’ Islands in the Sea of Marmara, some twenty minutes from Istanbul the night of the failed coup. In a subsequent appearance at a Washington think tank forum held by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neo-con address whose chairman is former CIA director, neo-con James Woolsey III, Barkey and his host tried to make a feeble joke about his presence in Istanbul the night of the coup and his ties to Gülen.
For once, Brzezinski is right.
The CIA-Gülen coup d’etat attempt to topple Erdogan after his turn towards rapprochement with Moscow was “a grave mistake.” The consequences, aside from a massive crackkdown on Gülen networks and media inside Turkey, include an open dialogue of Erdogan and the Turkish government of Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım with Russia and now with Iran, about a “solution” to the Syrian war that would include Bashar al-Assad as at least a transition figure.
The Erdogan pivot East since the failed CIA coup has forced the Pentagon to quietly remove its nuclear warheads from Turkey’s Incirlik airbase near the Syrian border to Romania. At the same time, Turkey’s Prime Minister on August 20 stated to the media that Russia could possibly use Turkey’s Incirlik Airbase if necessary, something that certainly produced more acute gas pains in Langley, Foggy Bottom (the more than fitting name for the US State Department headquarters), and the Obama White House.
July 15 may go down in history as one of the most decisive defeats of American global power projection, of the so-called New World Order of David Rockefeller and friends. If so, not a minute too soon for the prospect of a more peaceful world.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Last edited by moeen yaseen on Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:35 pm; edited 4 times in total
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:42 pm Post subject: Eschatology in the 21st century: interfaith and comparitive
WORLD WAR WAR III IS ALREADY UNDER WAY
John Pilger
THE COMING WAR ON CHINA
Thom talks with author and filmmaker John Pilger about his new documentary “The Coming War On China” and the military escalation that could lead World War III.
Chairman, Moeen Yaseen: Last year Global Vision organised a think tank along the same lines but we did not call it the moral, ideological and political crisis – we called it Global Vision 2000 Conference on Eschatology in the 21st Century: Interfaith and Comparative Perspectives. We were looking at the same issues.
A little background. The last time I chaired a meeting here must have been during the crash. The meeting was held at the Kings Cross venue. Are we heading for something big again in the West just now – we shall see.
Just a few comments from my side to set the scene. Since WW2, if we were to take that as a kick off point, obviously in the West we have seen the collapse of communism, the Iron Curtain and the Cold War which led to a unipolar world. That more or less coincided with Gulf War I or II – it depends on how you classify the Iran-Iraq war and the war with Kuwait. So at that time Fukayama referred to the triumphalism and the end of history. Then you have Professor Huntington’s thesis on the end of history and the clash of civilisations.
It has been almost 25 years since then. Have we come full circle and what is the nature of the current malaise that we are seeing. The flyer states: Recent developments in the Western hemisphere have raised concerns among thinkers and ideologues about the state of Western world. From the inflated refugee saga to the Trump phenomenon and the rise of the far right, terms like Apocalypse, Armageddon, Third World War and civilisational collapse suddenly resembled reality lowering the threshold of fear among the “wise” men and women. What is adding to the worry is that those phenomena are embraced by large proportions of the Western societies. This is likely to entrench social, cultural and religious polarisation to unprecedented levels. This seminar is an attempt to contribute to the discourse on the looming Western crisis.
There is no reference to Islam or Islamophobia which is central to this crisis to some extent. So this seminar today is another shot to contribute to the discourse on this crisis and its nature. I don’t think we are going to do justice to it but it is timely and relevant.
Catherine Shakdam: If you look at the constructs Islam has been pitted in terms of the East versus the West or Islam versus the Judeo Christian world. We have been sold the clash of civilisations. I find this very interesting because I do not believe we have a clash of civilisations. What we have is Western constructs: this idea that Western culture and civilisation and the way in which the West understands its culture and identity is better than that of others. So what you have is a very bad case of exceptionalism with ethno centrism.
What I find very interesting is that a lot of the time when we have religious debates Islam somehow sits in a position of vindication of Western values. What we do quite get is that the media and politicians and governments and think tanks and many others have tried to tell the world about what they perceive as Islam. But it is not Islam because they do not understand what Islam is. What they are looking at is cultural Islam.
So when they look at the Islamic world they see culture and they see ethnicity. What they are trying to do is a latent form of imperialism and neo colonialism. They try to own a country’s ideology and direct its tradition and make sure that they bow to the Western dogma and try to abide by Western rules.
It is important we understand this because when they talk about Islamophobia and Muslim radicalism and how it is endangering national security they have to fight someone. What they are really talking about is cultural Marxism. What they are really talking about is assimilation.
The EU has just passed a law demanding that Muslim women be forced to take off the hijab because it goes against secularism. We need to understand that this is not just an attack on Islam and the idea of religion and religious freedom. In fact people now in Western society in this kind of uber liberalism are not allowed to think for themselves and they have to comply and conform to what the state dictates. That to me is the very definition of cultural Marxism. People are being asked to negate and to deny who they are and what they believe so that the state can control them and devise a new identity.
So when we talk about the West versus the East or Islam versus the Judeo Christian world this is really what we are talking. We are really talking about the negation of identity and the simple fact that Islam professes freedom and individualism in the sense that people have the right to critical thinking and the right to chose for themselves the right to be who they want to be and those rights are actually protected. You absolutely have the right to chose for yourself and in religion there is no compulsion. They are trying to denying us this.
That is the first point I wanted to make. I am tired of people trying to frame this clash of civilisations as if one civilisation is better than the other and that is not the case. People are entitled to their faith and their culture and their traditions. We do not have to agree with them but at least accept that they are entitled to them.
When you see for example what is happening in Bahrain, what is happening in Yemen or Iraq and Syria and you see how Wahabism is trying to remap and to redefine what his acceptable culturally this is exactly what the West is doing today. But it is doing it under a different name of national security and counter terrorism. But the nature of this is the same where we have a form of fascism that is very dangerous. How can you deny people their right to their identity and who they are and you are basically calling for the worse kind of enslavement because that leads to cultural genocide.
We think there is a line between liberalism and Wahabism. We think they are polar opposities but they are actually quite similar in their constructs in that they both take some form of moral high ground in order to justify a very violent and dogmatic political construct.
So if people talk about clashes let us talk about those clashes because they are against all of us and they are trying to obliterate all those who stand against them. I think more than ever today when we have discussions on religious rights and how people should behave in the public sphere and how they should divorce God from the public sphere we have to realise that whether we are talking about liberalism or Wahabism we are talking about the same phenomenon. We need to be careful and mindful of the fact that religion in not a nationality, it is just a belief system and it is supposed to transcend nationalism and to unite people on a different level or to a different degree and to promote tolerance. A lot of the time now the media and government associates religion with violence and a form of dogmatism and religion is not that unless you understand Wahabism as a religion but I would reject that.
Another point I want to raise is about the refugee crisis because it has been used to fuel this kind of dichotomy between east versus west and this idea that we have to hate the other, we have to exclude the other and live in a state of exclusion.
I am not sure that you will agree with me but I am still going to say it: the refugee crisis has been used as an asymmetrical weapon of war in that the pain of the Syrian, Iraqi, Yemini and Bahraini people all those people who ran for their lives because they had no choice and lost everything – their pain has been used as a political tool to actually sell racism and xenophobia.
We need to understand the demographics. If you look at Turkey and the refugee crisis you see women and children and you see families. When you look at the arrivals in Europe you need to see that the demography changes to single men. You have less women and less children. We need to ask ourselves why it is that a certain demographic of refugees has been bottlenecked into Europe to spread violence. We are talking about crimes. We are talking about rape and murder and of course it is all being linked back to Islam.
People are making the case that Islam is of course a negation of Western values. We need to do something against Islam, we need to reform Islam. We need to do all these things and to make sure that for the love of God Muslims become less Muslim and more cultural Muslim. They should not pray too hard or pray too loud because it bothers people – it bothers the Western liberals because they do not want people to have a strong identity. They do not want people to be independent full stop. They do not want people to be individuals.
What they are trying to do is to push the refugee agenda and play this humanitarian card against people. They are saying we are good in the West, we are welcoming those refugees. By the way the West created those refugees because we need to remember that those bombs they are running away from are actually Western made bombs.
We need to understand that those people are actually being played as a weapon so they could sell Islamophobia to the world. The more refugees come into Europe (why Europe by the way?) the more crimes are being committed and the more the far right is actually gaining ground.
There is a narrative being played around all of us and we are completely oblivious to it most of the time because we are too busy trying to defend who we feel are our own people. We have to remember that when a crime is committed, number one, we should denounce it. I don’t care if people are Muslim, Jewish, Christians whatever. A crime is a crime and the people who commit crimes should go to jail regardless of who they are, and where they come from. Running away from war and violence does not justify committing another act of violence against other people. That would make us Zionists and I do not believe we want to be that.
We need to be careful when we talk about the refugee crisis because the refugees need to taken care of but we need to make sure they are really being taken care and they are not being played by political powers so that they can score some points and justify their fascist ideology. So far I have seen so many political commentators come out and defend those Muslim refugees just because they are Muslim completely forgetting that those people actually have a different type of agenda and they are actually committing crimes, they are actually soiling our names as human beings – never mind Muslims.
We should speak against it and not allow the tragedy that is war to prevent us from seeing the truth and the fact that we are being played. It is a demographic remapping. They are trying to play demographics and tension will arise because we would have to be stupid to not understand that we can’t justify mass immigration and ask any one country to take millions of people, thousands of people and not expect tension to happen. Of course tension will happen because the state institutions will be stretched. There are only so many resources in one country and it would be ridiculous to argue that the West is richer than other countries so they would have to accept all those people. We do not have to there are alternatives.
And my question is why is that Saudi Arabia is not opening its borders to Syrian refugees. They have a city of tents they use for hajj but they do not use them for refugees. Why? Because they do not want to. The point is to send them to the West so that they West would learn to hate Muslims and that the West would learn to hate the other and would learn to hate different ethnicities and label them as being negative, fefarious and devilish in essence.
I think we have almost lost the battle there because we have not talked about it enough. There is a grand debate about the hijab and I am hoping that this grand debate will illustrate the fact that people are trying to outlaw religion per se. It is not just a Muslim problem, it is a religious problem. We can shed a light on this and the rise of the far right can alert people to the fact of the reality that we are living under today.
I would like to just finish on the rise of the far right because it is troubling. It is very troubling that we have the likes of Donald Trump becoming the norm. The things that he says and the fact that no one is actually being outraged enough to rise and resist him is appalling and very worrying. We make fun of him. But is it not funny. I am not laughing anymore. I thought there was no way he could make it but he did. He made it because he was elected. That tells me somewhere in America people think it is okay to think like this and to speak like this. They want to see the things that he wants to see happen.
He is just a cog in the machine, he is just part of the system and he does not have any real power. But that tells me that the far right has now become the norm and it is okay to hate the other. We do this a lot. We do this all the time. We live in a negation of other people, in exclusion of other people and comparing what we do by saying it is okay, the others are doing worse.
It is not okay. We have to rise. At some point in time we are going to have to decide that we have to do better not just because we don’t want revenge but because we want justice and there is a difference between wanting revenge and wanting justice. I think we have passed the point of revenge because revenge has led Bahrain to bleed and Yemen to bleed and Syria to bleed and many other countries to bleed. So I would like to think enough is enough because war is coming here to the West because communities are being pitted against each other and I would just pray that we have enough reason and insight to understand that it can’t happen here because if it happens here we are done for. Who could speak for us?
With regard to the far right I am referring to the relationship with Wahabism because we have failed to understand that the far right and Wahabism and all forms of fascism are the same. They are the same but they are just dressed differently and are giving rise to a different form of hatred.
Liberalism today is the Western expression of Wahabism and if you look at what is happening in Yemen I would beg you to really reconsider. You don’t want this here. You do not want this to become a form of governance, you do not want this to become a reality. Living in exclusion and being shunned because of who you are and I should know.
When you are being shunned by a system just because you believe differently in religion it is not fun to be sitting where I am sitting and to be called many names and to be told I don’t have the right to be who I am. I am told here in the West that I don’t have the right to be who I am because they don’t like Islam and they don’t like the fact that I was born here but I belong to someone else or another faith and that makes me foreign.
I don’t think that religions make you foreign. I don’t even think that ethnicity makes you foreign. What makes you foreign is that people want to live in exclusion of each other. Geography means nothing. We need to learn to live with each other and we don’t even have to like each other. But what we have to do is recognise that those rights we demand for yourself we have to give to other people because otherwise we are a hypocrites and we are opening ourselves up to fascism.
In conclusion I just hope that this decay which we see in the West is understood in that God has been driven out of the public sphere and I think that is a mistake. If you don’t have a real anchor then this happens. We talked about religion and how it is very bad and it is better to have ethics and morals but how can you have ethics and morals if you do not have religion? And you don’t even have to believe in God. You have to admit that religion offers an anchor without which laws and ethics would have no meaning. Thank you very much for listening.
Chairman: That you very much Catherine for kicking off the debate. Your attempted the diagnosis and you indeed offered a solution. Without further ado I am delighted that Ziauddin Sardar is the next speaker.
Ziauddin Sardar: Salam alekium. Look at these three photographs. (Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen). They tell us something about the West but they also tell us something about ourselves.
Many of the people who voted for Donald Trump actually believe in God. They are devout Christians. In fact without the support of the Christian right he would probably not have won. Many people who support Geert Wilders, who will probably win the election tomorrow in the Netherlands. Many of the people who actually support these guys (thirty percent in France – one third of France) and almost twenty percent in Holland are actually quite liberal. They are not totally mad. They give us serious concerns and it is perhaps these concerns that have elevated these concerns to this level. Their concerns are not all that different from some of the concerns that we have ourselves.
Let’s switch to ISIS. What does ISIS say? Let’s make Islam great again. That is what the Caliphate is all about. Let’s make Islam great again. Why is it that Islam needs be made great again? Because first of all it is not the dominant power. Secondly a great deal of what Muslim societies say and do seems to have no relevance to modern times. They have come out of a long period of colonisation and there is a great deal of uncertainty and insecurity about us. People who live in Muslim countries have a great deal of insecurity and a lot of their insecurity is blamed on the West.
This was largely because Muslims have no power. This is a product of the fact that power has shifted from where it was conventionally located over the last thirty, forty or fifty years. And their reaction is not all that different from our reaction. ISIS is a fascist organisation. The spread of Wahabi thought is very much a kind of reaction to uncertainty and insecurity. The number of people who have embraced Wahabi thought shows that the people feel uncertain and insecure in uncertain times and they want certainty and security. What these guys want is exactly the same.
The power is shifting from America to China. China is now the leading global power, not America. America is a nuclear power. But essentially China is the leading power, even though America has more weapons than all the empires of history put together. There is also another rising power – Russia. Twenty or thirty years ago if Russia had moved to the Crimea we would have been on the edge of a nuclear war. But in fact Russia took over Crimea within a week. Then Russia moved into Syria. Even the military balance is changing. India is an economic power as well.
So power is shifting And when power shifts from those who have had absolute power then uncertainly and insecurity becomes the norm. And when uncertainty and insecurity becomes the norm you actually go back and grab what you think is your anchor.
For many that anchor is a nationalist, far right identity. Let us not forget that fascism was a dominant entity in Europe fifty or sixty years ago and France was fascist. So was Spain under Franco and there were the Greek generals right up until the 1980s. So fascism is not alien to the West. It is said that racism is only skin deep in Western civilisations. If you scratch it hard it will come to the surface. So going back to that kind of racism is a natural tendency in times of uncertainty, and insecurity, in times when contradictions become the dominant theme.
Another thing which is happening now which may look pretty surprising is populism – the populist movement is moving the far right to the forefront. Most of these movements have genuine grievances at their heart. For example inequality. Systematically inequality has increased over the last twenty to thirty years in every single Western country. Power has not just shifted to other nation states or other super powers if you like (China and Russia) – it has also shifted to other entities that we do not know how to deal with called non-state actors, and I don’t just mean terrorists. I mean multinational corporations who have much more power than nation states. Google, Microsoft or Apple have more power than say France or Belgium in certain areas. And they have played a role not only in increasing inequality but also in increasing uncertainty and insecurity in terms of employment and social media etc.
So populism is actually a product of what has happened in the last twenty to thirty years. Should we be surprised that during the past twenty to thirty years almost every Western university in Europe and the United States has been teaching post modernism which essentially argues that there is no such thing as truth – that all truth is relative. This is a basic theory that most people who study social sciences, education, whatever learn. So you have a whole generation thinking, or being brought up to think, that everything is relative. So why should we be surprised that they come to the conclusion that there is no truth all. So a great deal of what is happening is hardly surprising and it is a result of a genuine political crisis and a genuine moral crisis in the West.
It does mean one of two things. First it means that claim of superiority of Western civilisation just does not hold water anymore. Europe does not do fascism. That was the post war idea. We do not to authoritarianism, we do not do far right movements. That was where the West could claim some kind or moral superiority but all that has gone now. What we are seeing is the shift in power and the political crisis.
The fact that the moral superiority argument has collapsed produced a moral and ideological crisis. But at the same time we see that this tells us something about the West, it also tells us something about us. What it tells us is that there is no such thing as an isolated, encapsulated West out there. There is a West out there that we are going to stand up and hate because we are from the East and we are Muslims, that is what we do, we hate them, we hate the United States. That is the mantra.
Everything is changing. There is no east or west either geographically or culturally. Geographically there is more East in London than there is Karachi. There is more East in the suburbs of Paris then there is in Morocco and Algeria. A great deal of what happens in Morocco and Algeria actually starts in the suburbs of Paris and then goes off to Morocco and Algeria and Tunisia. So there is no specific kind of location where you can say this location is east or west, this location is a location of Western culture.
And culturally of course we are all influenced by the West just as much as the West is influenced by us. What the hell are we doing here? We are here because there are certain Western values that have attracted us to this place.
Yes, Saudi Arabia should accept refugees. But how many Syrian refugees want to go to Saudi Arabia. There is a reason for that. There are certain that the West still represents which we have to accept and acknowledged. So what is happening in the West has a direct impact on us because we live in an interrelated and interconnected world. What happens in the United States and Europe has a direct impact on Pakistan, Malaysia, Iran and the Middle East.
We have to stop thinking in terms of East and West. The political crisis, the moral crisis of the West is as much a political and moral crisis of Muslim societies and in fact Muslim societies went through this crisis first and it has now arrived in the West and it is for us to actively do something about it. Thanks you very much.
Chairman: Thank you Ziauddin. That was very intriguing – a very different approach to the diagnosis about power shifts and also uncertainty.
Clive Hambidge: Salam Aleikum. First of all I would like to thank you for inviting me. When I think of Islam I think of peace, peace, peace. I want to concentrate, even though I am someone who is very aware of the values of sharing and coexistence on the importance of a diverse country where people have the right (we have here a partially functioning democracy) to go to the ballot box but our opinions often stop there. We do not go forward from that.
Tonight I want to focus on America. All we have to do is to have a good look at the three pictures. We see the rise of fascism and the far right. We have to go back to the 1930s and 40s where we saw the rise of the military industrial complex and now the industrial retail complex. We can’t ignore it. This is the power drive and it is fairly and squarely in the ball park of America and it is about America that I want to talk this evening.
I want to look at America from an almost detached from a rather detached perspective and see the vicious role it has played in the Middle East and indeed everywhere through the auspices mainly of the CIA.
We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to people like Snowden and all those who take up, like a hot coal, the cause of freedom from tyranny in the 21st century, the tyranny of neo slavery and misinformation where human beings are seen as disposable products to be used and abused in underground trading – mere commodities. No human being is a commodity. All human beings are valuable and precious in the eyes of God, Allah and that is how we should treat each other.
Therefore when we see such abuse taking place all over the world then it is up to demonstrate, remonstrate, write do whatever we can to bring this to the attention of the world and those in positions of so called leadership.
The figures are staggering as they are sobering: 27 million men, women and children are held, sold and trafficked. This morning slavery, this age old evil, persists and it must be addressed. This is my main point really and obviously then looking at the moral and ethical dimension in looking at our own actions. This must be addressed through volunteerism. The people who act have rid themselves of fear. Fear saps our energy, it takes away the moral compass and stifles our actions and our movements so we allow this rising far right movement which will then enslave us.
In America slavery comes in many forms but it also comes in the form of consumerism. No country in the world is better in enslaving its people into buying things they don’t want than America and so turning their minds away from the real needs: the welfare of the perceived other. I do not see the perceived other – I see a brother and a sister.
We are persuaded to buy into this ever pervasive pathology of consumerism to buy what we don’t need, increase the ever rising scenario of personal debt and the all consuming fear which feeds it and chains us to a subconscious consumerist slavery that saps the energy and the will to help those in forms of deprivation in developing nations and in our own nation.
What is interesting about this is that Trump is an example of this – we see this ego manic with an ego made out of solid gold who is impervious to any criticism. He has just got rid of 45/ 46 federal judges in America so we have fascism and the vote for Trump shows that fascism is on the rise in America. At the same time we see that the states in America, most of the states in America are looking for autonomy and moving away from this centralised form of government and federalism and to understand the nature of freedom and also to look after people. This is developing in America at this very time.
In America we have 150 new co-operatives. Some of them are in woods in the outback where you find machine guns. They are forming co-operatives so in co-operation, informing organisations and then co-ordinating with other organisations, particularly NGO’s, then you have a very powerful force for good.
If you think about the right wing you will find it in America. No country is more skilful than America in enslaving its citizens to market forces. A statement from Norman Chomsky describes corruption and captures the very nature of what I am talking about and what is embodied in people like Trump and the others that we see in the photographs. He says (and this is from this group of business leaders) we have to impose on people a philosophy of futility and make sure that they focus on the superficial, on superficial things of fashionable consumption. We have to try to pursue what we call fanciful wants or invented needs. We create the needs and then get them to focus their attention on them, then they don’t bother us, they are out of our hair.
It is a simple fact that we are influencing each other all the time. What about the essence of Islam? My neighbours downstairs are Muslims. When they have a birthday they bring us presents, they bring us the birthday cake. Many years ago my wonderful companion Suriah and the three children would just pop upstairs without asking knock, come in and be very aware that we would help them with their homework. It was just a natural extension of love and that is the solution to all the problems that we see.
At the present time we are whipped and tossed into a state induced nightmare automated, corralled into small mental places, creating more and more tension. Someone wrote recently even the grass is depressed.
And John Pilger writes in letters from war and death in his new book The New Rules of the World when the American Vice-president Cheney said the war on terrorism will last for 50 years or more it is concocted because of the military-industrial complex. People are making vast profits out of killing people no where else more than in America and also in Britain.
If we look at Syria more than 2.5milllion children – my God! – are starving essentially and living in tents. And how long are they going to be living in tents for? We see the same thing in Somalia. Thousands of people are living in tents with just about enough to be able to survive in a world of plenty which has the means and the organisation to end this terrible, terrible injustice.
We the people must peacefully push, shove, cajole, remonstrate to our presidents and prime ministers. I put Teresa May in the same bracket. They are all moving to the right wing. We have to lay aside our apathy and realise our potential, indeed our very self through selfless activism.
In America I often think that the constitution is ignored. The constitution if one reads it, is not just a constitution for America but for all people. We can take parts of it because most of it is for the protection of all people at all times. So I just want to talk a little about the constitution. Measured the constitution remains radical in that it is wise because justice and freedom are always present much as an elder brother hovering in a moral and ethical dimension looking for signs of maturity sorely lacking in the adolescent sons and daughters of successive American administrations and their increasing connivance with accountable private power.
Nevertheless the constitution and its light remains undimmed drawing to it all those who seek a road map towards justice, equality and freedom. The constitution is not meant to reflect oppressive actions. Neither is it meant to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. We spoke about the dangers of democracy. Democracy is dangerous for the elites because it would inculcate and reflect the movement towards an evolutionary freedom of expression and that expression would abide by the rule of law and its benefactor love.
The past is never over. If we examine it carefully within our own consciousness the past repeats itself again and again and this we call habituation, we form habits of thinking. They can become hardened, they can become hateful or the very opposite. Loving. So the past is not over as it lies cyclically with its arrogance of power, the power in corporations that seek to eliminate democracy.
This is a serious debate in elitist groups where radical takes on the dark stately cloak. Chomsky makes it clear in an interview with John Nicholson entitled radical democracy and he turns to Aristotle and makes it clear rightly that we need to eliminate poverty. Chomsky talks about the welfare state not in the real politik propaganda where slackers are lazy and are happy to survive on handouts. This is nonsense. Deep concern is concern for the welfare of the true sovereign nation and its beleaguered citizens who should not only move the executive levers but the social mechanisms of governance and execution.
The very heart of American leadership, if they are ever willing to find it, should be beating in rhythmical time with the hearts of those less fortunate and indeed those more able. These two groups coming together one to express their concerns and the other to then offer their help.
The growing demand for social justice and equality rises from the convulsions of suffering not just in America but also here and particularly in the Middle East. When we think of Palestine, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon wherever we look there is tremendous suffering. The great exodus from Africa which is only going to increase. We are going to see this through conflict and through political corruption and that is also fuelled by American connivance.
The America people would be clear about what it is that they could do for their country and they would remind themselves of the benevolence of its constitution and the battle ahead for democracy. They would then find the natural law of justice manifesting.
*Ziauddin Sardar is Chair of the Muslim Institute, a learned, fellowship society that promotes knowledge and debate, and editor of Critical Muslim, an innovative quarterly on contemporary Muslim ideas and thought. He is also the Director of the Centre of Postnormal Policy and Futures Studies, East West Chicago, and the editor of its journal East West Affairs.
He has been described as a ‘critical polymath’ and works across a number of disciplines ranging from Islamic studies and futures studies to science policy, literary criticism, information science to cultural relations, art criticism and critical theory. He was born in Pakistan in 1951 and grew up in Hackney, East London.
Ziauddin Sardar has worked as science journalist for Nature and New Scientist and as a television reporter for London Weekend Television. He was a columnist on the New Statesman for a number of years and has served as a Commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission and as a member of the Interim National Security Forum.
Ziauddin Sardar has published over 45 books. The Future of Muslim Civilisation (1979) and Islamic Futures: The Shape of Ideas to Come (1985) are regarded as classic studies on the future of Islam. He pioneered the discussion on science in Muslim societies, with a series of articles in Nature and New Scientist and a number of books, including Science, Technology and Development in the Muslim World (1977), The Touch of Midas: Science, Values and the Environment in Islam and the West (1982), which is seen as a seminal work, The Revenge of Athena: Science, Exploitation and the Third World (1988) acquired a cultish following and Why Do People Hate America? (2002) became an international bestseller.
**Clive Hambidge is Human Development Director at facilitate global a human rights NGO. His articles and papers have been published among others in IRIN, Al Haram, The Palestinian Chronicle, Media With Conscience, Dandelion Salad, Sabbah Report, Al-Arabiya and London Progressive Journal. He also had numerous interviews with Press TV. Clive has over 30 years experience working with faith communities which include the Hindu Community in general and in particular with the Head of the London Sevaashram Sangha, Swami Nirliptinanda. He has acted for many years, in an emissary capacity to support the work of the former Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, his Grace Bishop Riah Abu Al Assal.
***Catherine Shakdam is a political analyst and commentator for the Middle East with a special focus on Yemen and radical movements. She is the Director of Programs for the Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies in the UK, and serves as Special Adviser for the Middle East for Prince Ali Seraj of Afghanistan. She also sits as the Executive Director of PASI (Prince Ali Seraj of Afghanistan Institute for Peace and Reconstruction) She is the author of Arabia’s Rising – Under The Banner Of The First Imam. Her writings have appeared on RT, Press TV, Mehr News, The Foreign Policy Journal, The Duran, MintPress, the American Herald Tribune, Open Democracy, the Age of Reflection and many others. She’s the director and founder of Veritas-Consulting.
Last edited by moeen yaseen on Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:21 pm; edited 3 times in total
The Spoils of War: Trump Lavished With Media and Bipartisan Praise For Bombing Syria
Glenn Greenwald
IN EVERY TYPE of government, nothing unites people behind the leader more quickly, reflexively or reliably than war. Donald Trump now sees how true that is, as the same establishment leaders in U.S. politics and media who have spent months denouncing him as a mentally unstable and inept authoritarian and unprecedented threat to democracy are standing and applauding him as he launches bombs at Syrian government targets.
Trump, on Thursday night, ordered an attack that the Pentagon said included the launching of 59 Tomahawk missiles which “targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars.” The governor of Homs, the Syrian province where the attack occurred, said early this morning that the bombs killed seven civilians and wounded nine.
The Pentagon’s statement said the attack was “in retaliation for the regime of Bashar Assad using nerve agents to attack his own people.” Both Syria and Russia vehemently deny that the Syrian military used chemical weapons.
When asked about this yesterday by the Globe and Mail’s Joanna Slater, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged an investigation to determine what actually happened before any action was contemplated, citing what he called “continuing questions about who is responsible”:
But U.S. war fever waits for nothing. Once the tidal wave of American war frenzy is unleashed, questioning the casus belli is impermissible. Wanting conclusive evidence before bombing commences is vilified as sympathy with and support for the foreign villain (the same way that asking for evidence of claims against Russia instantly converts one into a “Kremlin agent” or “stooge”).
That the Syrian government deliberately used chemical weapons to bomb civilians became absolute truth in U.S. discourse within less than 24 hours – even though Trudeau urged an investigation, even though it was denied in multiple capitals around the world, and even though Susan Rice just two months ago boasted to NPR: “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”
Whatever happened with this event, the Syrian government has killed hundreds of thousands of people over the past five years in what began as a citizen uprising in the spirit of the Arab Spring, and then morphed into a complex proxy war involving foreign fighters, multiple regional powers, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Russia.
The CIA has spent more than a billion dollars a year to arm anti-Assad rebels for years, and the U.S. began bombing Syria in 2014 – the 7th predominantly Muslim country bombed by Obama – and never stopped. Trump had already escalated that bombing campaign, culminating in a strike last month that Syrians say destroyed a mosque and killed dozens. What makes this latest attack new is that rather than allegedly targeting terrorist sites of ISIS and Al Qaeda, it targets the Syrian government – something Obama threatened to do in 2013 but never did.
Leading Congressional Democrats – including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi – quickly praised Trump’s bombing while raising concerns about process. Hours before the bombing commenced, as it was known Trump was planning it, Hillary Clinton – who has been critical of Obama for years for not attacking Assad – appeared at an event and offered her categorical support for what Trump was planning:
The Trump White House is preliminarily indicating that this was a limited strike, designed to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons, rather than a new war to remove him. But such aggression, once unleashed, is often difficult to contain. The Russian and Iranian governments, both supportive of Assad, have bitterly denounced Trump for the attack, with a Putin spokesman calling it a “significant blow” for U.S.-Russian relations. Russia already announced retaliation in the form of suspending cooperation agreements.
Even if it is contained, there are endless implications from Trump’s initiation of military force against the Syrian Government. For now, here are ten critical points highlighted by all of this:
1. New wars will always strengthen Trump: as they do for every leader.
The instant elevation of Trump into a serious and respected war leader was palpable. Already, the New York Times is gushing that “in launching a military strike just 77 days into his administration, President Trump has the opportunity, but hardly a guarantee, to change the perception of disarray in his administration.”
Political leaders across the spectrum rushed to praise Trump and support his bombing campaign. Media coverage was overwhelmingly positive. One consummate establishment spokesman accurately observed:
New wars trigger the worst in people: their jingoism, their tribal loyalties, their instinct to submit to authority and leaders. The incentive scheme here is as obvious as it is frightening: great rewards await political leaders who start new wars. In Federalist 4, John Jay warned of all the personal benefits a leader obtains from starting a new war – which is the reason it was supposed to be difficult for U.S. Presidents to do it:
It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.
Trump is going to see – and feel – the establishment and media respect he craves, the sensations of strength he most lacks, by dropping bombs. Every person, let alone Trump, would be tempted to keep pursuing war as a result of this warped incentive framework. Indeed, Trump himself has long been aware of this motivation as he accused Obama in 2012 of preparing to start a new war in response to falling poll numbers:
Those who instantly fall in line behind Trump as he bombs people are ensuring that he will keep doing it. As the instantly popular post-9/11 George W. Bush showed, those praising Trump for bombing Syria are also building him up in general so that he becomes stronger with everything else he wants to do.
2. Democrats’ jingoistic rhetoric has left them no ability – or desire – to oppose Trump’s wars.
Democrats have spent months wrapping themselves in extremely nationalistic and militaristic rhetoric. They have constantly accused Trump of being a traitor to the U.S., a puppet of Putin, and unwilling to defend U.S. interests. They have specifically tried to exploit Assad’s crimes by tying the Syrian leader to Trump, insisting that Trump would never confront Assad because doing so would anger his Kremlin masters. They have embraced a framework whereby anyone who refuses to confront Putin or Assad is deemed a sympathizer of, or a servant to, foreign enemies.
Having pushed those tactics and themes, Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. How could they possibly do anything but cheer as Trump bombs Syria? They can’t. And cheering is thus exactly what they’re doing.
For months, those of us who have urged skepticism and restraint on the Russia rhetoric have highlighted the risk that this fixation on depicting him as a tool of the Kremlin could goad Trump – dare him or even force him – to seek confrontation with Moscow. Some Democrats reacted with rage yesterday at the suggestion that their political tactics were now bearing this fruit, but that’s how politics works.
Much as George H.W. Bush was motivated to shed his “wimp” image by invading Panama, of course Trump will be motivated to prove he’s not controlled by Putin via blackmail by seeking confrontation with the Russian leader. And that’s exactly what he just did. War is the classic weapon U.S. Presidents use to show they are strong, patriotic and deserving of respect; the more those attributes are called in question, the greater that compulsion becomes:
Trump is the prime author of his wars, and of this bombing in Syria. He, and he alone, bears primary responsibility for it. But Trump is not an island of agency; he operates in the climate of Washington. A major reason why it’s so dangerous to ratchet up rhetorical tension between two major nuclear-armed powers is because of the ease with which those tensions can translate into actual conflict, and the motivation it can create for Trump to use war to prove he’s a patriot after all.
Whatever else is true, Democrats – with very few exceptions such as Rep. Ted Lieu and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard – have refrained from criticizing Trump’s bombing campaign on the merits (as opposed to process issues). Indeed, Democratic Party leaders have explicitly praised Trump’s bombing. They will have to continue to do so even if Trump expands this war. That’s what the Democratic Party has turned itself into to; indeed, it’s what it has been for a long time.
3. In wartime, US television instantly converts into state media.
As it always does, the U.S. media last night was an almost equal mix of excitement and reverence as the bombs fell. People who dissent from this bombing campaign – who opposed it on the merits – were almost entirely disappeared, as they always are in such moments of high patriotism (MSNBC’s Chris Hayes had two guests on after midnight who opposed it, but they were rare). Claims from the U.S. government and military are immediately vested with unquestioned truth and accuracy, while claims from foreign adversaries such as Russia and Syria are reflexively scorned as lies and propaganda.
For all the recent hysteria over RT being a propaganda outlet for the state, U.S. media coverage is barely distinguishable in times of war (which is, for the U.S., the permanent state of affairs). More systematic analysis will surely be forthcoming of last night’s coverage, but for now, here is Brian Williams – in all of his military-revering majesty – showing how state TV functions in the United States:
And here’s Fareed Zakaria declaring on CNN that Donald Trump has now been instantly transformed into the President of the United States in all of the loftiest and most regal senses of the term:
4. Trump’s bombing is illegal, but presidents are now omnipotent.
It should be startling and infuriating that Trump is able to order a new attack on the Syrian Government without any democratic debate, let alone Congressional approval. At least when Obama started bombing Syria without Congress, he had the excuse that it was authorized by the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, since his ostensible targets were terrorist groups (even though ISIS did not exist until years after that was enacted and is hardly “affiliated” with Al Qaeda). But since there’s no self-defense pretext to what Trump just did, what possible legal rationale exists for this? None.
But nobody in Washington really cares about such legalities. Indeed, we have purposely created an omnipotent presidency. Recall that in 2011, Obama went to war in Libya not just without Congressional approval, but even after Congress rejected such authorization.
What happened to Obama as a result of involving the U.S in a war that Congress had rejected? Absolutely nothing, because Congress, due to political cowardice, wants to abdicate war-making powers to the President. As a country, we have decided we want an all-powerful president – one who can bomb, and spy, and detain, and invade with virtually no limits. That’s the machinery of the imperial presidency that both parties have jointly built and have now handed to President Trump.
Indeed, in 2013, Obama explicitly argued that he had the right to bomb Assad without Congressional approval – a precedent the Trump White House will now use.
5. How can those who view Trump as an Inept Fascist now trust him to wage war?
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the last 24 hours has been watching those who have vilified Trump as an Evil Fascist and Bumbling Clown and Unstable Sociopath suddenly decide that they want him to bomb Syria. Even if you’re someone who in the abstract wanted the U.S. to attack Assad, shouldn’t your view that Trump is a completely unstable and incompetent monster prevent you from endorsing this war, with Trump as the Commander-in-Chief?
What happened to all the warnings about Trump’s towering incompetence and core evil? Where are all the grave predictions that he’s leading the world on a path of authoritarianism, fascism and blood and soil nationalism? They all gave way to War Fever:
During the campaign, Trump explicitly vowed to commit war crimes: to torture detainees and purposely murder the families of terrorists. Back in April of last year, I summarized Trump’s mindset this way: “he favors fewer wars, but advocates more monstrous, war-criminal tactics for the ones US does fight.”
Given everything that has been claimed about Trump by his critics, how can any of them justify cheering for a bombing campaign led by him? Do they experience no cognitive dissonance at all in having spent months depicting Trump as a lying, deceitful fascist, only to now turn around and trust him to bomb other countries with care, humanitarianism and efficacy?
6. Like all good conspiracy theories, no evidence can kill the Kremlin-controls-Trump tale.
Central to the conspiracy theories woven for months by Democrats is the claim that Putin wields power over Trump in the form of blackmail, debts or other leverage. As a result, this conspiracy theory goes, the Kremlin has now infiltrated American institutions of power and controls the U.S. Government, because Trump is unwilling – indeed, unable – to defy Putin’s orders.
Yet here is Trump – less than three months after being inaugurated – bombing one of the Kremlin’s closest allies, in a country where Russia has spent more than a year fighting to preserve his government. Will any of this undermine or dilute the conspiracy theory that the Kremlin controls the White House? Of course not. Warped conspiracy theorists are not only immune to evidence that disproves their theories but, worse, find ways to convert such evidence into further proof of their conspiracies.
Already, the most obsessive Democratic conspiracists have cited the fact that the U.S. military advised Russia in advance of the strikes – something they would have been incredibly reckless not to do – as innuendo showing that Trump serves Putin. If Trump tomorrow bombed Red Square, Democrats – after cheering him – would quickly announce that he only did so to throw everyone off the trail of his collusion with Putin.
7. The fraud of humanitarianism works every time for (and on) American elites.
In the last two months, Trump has ordered a commando raid in Yemen that has massacred children and dozens of innocent people, bombed Mosul and killed scores of civilians, and bombed a mosque near Aleppo that killed dozens. During the campaign, he vowed to murder the family members of alleged terrorists. He shut America’s doors to Syrian refugees, and is deporting people who have lived in the U.S. since childhood despite committing no crimes.
Given all that, could American elites possibly believe him when he says that he is motivated by humanitarianism – deep-seated anger over seeing Syrian children harmed – in bombing Syria? Yes, they could, and they are. That’s because American elites always want to believe – or at least want others to believe – that the U.S. bombs countries over and over not out of aggression or dominance but out of love, freedom, democracy and humanitarian concern.
The U.S. Government does not wage war, and the U.S. military does not blow things up, out of humanitarianism. It does so when it believes there is some benefit to be obtained for itself. Again, Federalist 4 warned us: “nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it.”
If humanitarianism is what motivated the U.S. in Syria, it would take in massive numbers of refugees, but it hasn’t. If humanitarianism is what motivated the U.S. bombing of Libya, it would have given large amounts of aid to that country in the aftermath to help it deal with the ensuing anarchy and misery, but it didn’t. That’s because humanitarianism is the pretext for U.S. wars, not the actual motive.
But the psychological comfort of believing that the only reason your government bombs more countries by far than any other is because your country is just so uniquely devoted to humanitarian love is so powerful that it overrides all rational faculties. That’s why all wars – even the most malicious and aggressive – are wrapped in humanitarian packaging. And no matter how many times we see that this packaging is a lie – in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Libya – we keep wanting to believe that, this time, our bombs will be filled with love, help and freedom.
8. Support for Trump’s Bombing Shows Two Toxic U.S. Conceits: “Do Something” and “Look Strong”
Those who oppose Trump’s new bombing campaign – or any U.S. bombing campaign – are instantly met with the predictable objection: we must “Do Something” about Syria. This mentality is predicated on a terribly false, and terribly dangerous, premise: that the U.S. military can and should solve every world evil.
But sometimes, the U.S. lacks the ability to solve other problems. Often, having the U.S. drop bombs exacerbates suffering, rather than alleviates it. As upsetting as it is to accept, sometimes doing nothing is the least bad of all the options. Again, if humanitarianism really were the motive, there are many things the U.S. could do besides bombing Syria and killing civilians, such as giving refuge and humanitarian aid. But the idea that a war can be justified by appealing to the vague imperative that we must “do something” is incredibly irrational and immoral.
The same is true – indeed even more so – of this horribly toxic premise long endorsed by the world of U.S think tanks that a President must go to war to preserve “credibility” – meaning that he must drop bombs and kill people to show the world that he, and the country he leads, is “strong.” To see that hideous premise in action, look at how the New York Times gloriously depicted Bush 41’s senseless invasion of Panama in the above article, or how the NYT yesterday described the view of “experts” about Trump’s need to bomb Syria:
There may be some things more evil and immoral than starting a new war based on the desire to avoid “looking weak,” but it’s hard to think of many things that qualify. And yet this belief continues to be gospel among America’s war-loving think tank and Foreign Policy Community.
9. Obama’s refusal to bomb Assad hovers over everything.
Despite insisting that he had the power to do so without Congress, Obama resisted bipartisan demands to use military force against Assad. I personally view this as one of Obama’s smartest and best decisions and, according to today’s New York Times, so does he: “Mr. Obama said he was ‘very proud of that moment’ because he had stepped back from the Washington establishment’s warnings. Few of his top foreign policy advisers agreed.” Indeed, by the end of his presidency, the U.S. stopped claiming it was even seeking regime change.
But those who insist that the U.S. has a moral obligation to remove Assad or at least bomb him become tongue-tied when it comes to assessing Obama. If, as many claim, Assad is our generation’s Hitlerian figure – and recall how many recent foreign leaders were depicted as The New Hitler when some wanted them attacked – does that make Obama this generation’s Neville Chamberlain for his refusal to attack Assad? And does it mean that Trump has acted more morally than Obama by doing what Obama refused to do?
Again, I side with Obama in this dispute because I never believed that U.S. military had any positive role to play in Syria. But those who have long insisted that U.S. military action against Assad is morally imperative should follow those premises through to their conclusions when it comes to Obama and Trump.
10. None of this disproves, obviously, that Hillary Clinton was also a dangerous hawk.
Every time Trump drops another bomb, Democratic pundits declare vindication over those always-unnamed people who they claim argued during the campaign that Trump was more anti-war than Clinton:
Who are the people who argued that Trump would be more anti-war than Clinton? Their numbers were tiny; Maureen Dowd is one of the very people with a prominent platform to claim this. Trump expressly vowed to bomb more frequently and more aggressively, as was often pointed out.
It’s certainly true that any attempt by Trump to remove Assad would violate his oft-stated campaign vows. But whatever else is true, this specific bombing campaign is a bizarre instance to try to defend Clinton given that Clinton, for years – and again yesterday – endorsed this military action. Indeed, Clinton has long endorsed far more extensive military action in Syria than what Trump yesterday ordered, often advocating a no-fly-zone over parts of Syria – which would be a massive and incredibly dangerous military undertaking – and even yesterday calling for the destruction of Assad’s air force.
It’s certainly true that Trump vowed to involve the U.S. in fewer wars than Clinton wanted, and for a narrower range of reasons. And that may still end up happening. Indeed, many of Trump’s most vocal supporters yesterday were expressing anger even over this limited bombing campaign in Syria. But to take a military action that Clinton herself favored and try to use it to suggest that Clinton would have been less hawkish is just bizarre and deceitful beyond belief.
Ultimately, what is perhaps most depressing about all of this is how, yet again, we see the paucity of choice offered by American democracy. The leadership of both parties can barely contain themselves joining together to cheer the latest war. One candidate – the losing one – ran on a platform of launching this new war, while the other – the victor – repeatedly vowed to avoid it, only to launch it after being in office fewer than 100 days.
The one constant of American political life is that the U.S. loves war. Martin Luther King’s 1967 denunciation of the U.S. as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” is more accurate than ever.
UPDATE: While Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday urged an investigation before any action is taken, once Trump’s bombs fell, he issued a statement expressing full support, directly contradicting his earlier statements: “President Assad’s use of chemical weapons and the crimes the Syrian regime has committed against its own people cannot be ignored.”
Top photo: This photo provided by the U.S. Navy, shows the guided-missile destroyer USS Porter firing a Tomahawk land attack missile on April 7, 2017 in the Mediterranean Sea at a Syrian military airfield.
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:15 am Post subject: Eschatology in the 21st century: interfaith and comparitive
SHAIKH IMRAN HOSEIN SAYS NUCLEAR WAR IS COMING SOONER AND ASKS ARE YOU PREPARING FOR SURVIVAL OR STILL BEHAVING LIKE OSTRICHES WITH HEADS IN THE SAND AND ENGROSSED IN THE RAT RACE? HE REMINDS ALL THAT ITS TIME TO EMBRACE TRUTH AND REPENTANCE
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
