An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Pages
▼
Pages
▼
Sunday, July 22, 2018
Pavel Nastin — Jihadism Spreads like Wildfire Across Africa
Don't forget Africa. The most populous cities in the world are projected to be in Africa by the end of the century.
Not really. This gives the US reason to insert special forces all over Africa and establish an Africa Command. Right on target to control Africa, which is now growing in importance, especially since China is focusing on it. Part of the grand chessboard now.
The US started this? Jihadism has been going strong for 1,500 years, though I agree the West's interventions in the Middle East have been thoroughly ham fisted.
It's too bad the US doesn't have an ethical finance model to propagate abroad. Instead it gets other nations drunk on the "wine of its adultery (Revelation 18:3)"?
Not that we can't repent even at this late date, we should hope.
Ralph: "Jihadism has been going strong for 1,500 years..."
This argument is used a lot, but it proves the exact opposite of what is intended. Indeed, jihadism has been around from the very creation of Islam, and it got thoroughly nowhere. The jihadis need chaos and the West serves it up to them, intentionally or unintentionally depending on your politics and ability to accept the truth. The Islamic empires were not jihad-led, as any intelligent historian will tell you, and expanded at the rate they did because of the collapse of the Persian and Roman empires, as well as some violent wars. Indeed, the empires did much to quell the minority jihadi movement (the Ottomans are a good example, but so are the earliest empires in Syria and Egypt), usually by murdering the psychopaths, which is what is needed now, rather than aiding them as "freedom fighters", rebranding them as humanitarian "White Helmets" or using loony countries like Saudi Arabia as a spear carrier in an effort to destabilise much of the world so as to limit the rise of China.
Jihad has several meaning and none are about aggression or conquest.
Jihad in the social and political sense is a moral responsibility of Muslims to come to the aid and defense of the community when it is under threat or attack.
Osama Bin Ladin made this clear in his warnings to the West about encroaching on Muslim lands, especially holy lands.
Jihad in a moral sense is doing battle with the enemy within oneself, Shaitan as the adversary. Sufism interpret this as being the ego nafs, that is, the limited self intent on self-interest and self-importance, which must be subdued in order to advance morally and spiritually.
Were Muslim empires aggressive? Of course, but this has nothing to do with jihad as a an islamic religious concept.
What has the US and Saudi Arabia started? It's spun out of control.
ReplyDeleteNot really. This gives the US reason to insert special forces all over Africa and establish an Africa Command. Right on target to control Africa, which is now growing in importance, especially since China is focusing on it. Part of the grand chessboard now.
ReplyDeleteHow much of this is US sponsored?
ReplyDeleteMy guess: a large percentage. SOP.
US is competing with China and Russia in Africa. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteThe US started this? Jihadism has been going strong for 1,500 years, though I agree the West's interventions in the Middle East have been thoroughly ham fisted.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad the US doesn't have an ethical finance model to propagate abroad. Instead it gets other nations drunk on the "wine of its adultery (Revelation 18:3)"?
ReplyDeleteNot that we can't repent even at this late date, we should hope.
It's too bad the US doesn't have an ethical finance model to porpogate at home.
ReplyDeleteRalph: "Jihadism has been going strong for 1,500 years..."
ReplyDeleteThis argument is used a lot, but it proves the exact opposite of what is intended. Indeed, jihadism has been around from the very creation of Islam, and it got thoroughly nowhere. The jihadis need chaos and the West serves it up to them, intentionally or unintentionally depending on your politics and ability to accept the truth. The Islamic empires were not jihad-led, as any intelligent historian will tell you, and expanded at the rate they did because of the collapse of the Persian and Roman empires, as well as some violent wars. Indeed, the empires did much to quell the minority jihadi movement (the Ottomans are a good example, but so are the earliest empires in Syria and Egypt), usually by murdering the psychopaths, which is what is needed now, rather than aiding them as "freedom fighters", rebranding them as humanitarian "White Helmets" or using loony countries like Saudi Arabia as a spear carrier in an effort to destabilise much of the world so as to limit the rise of China.
Jihad has several meaning and none are about aggression or conquest.
ReplyDeleteJihad in the social and political sense is a moral responsibility of Muslims to come to the aid and defense of the community when it is under threat or attack.
Osama Bin Ladin made this clear in his warnings to the West about encroaching on Muslim lands, especially holy lands.
Jihad in a moral sense is doing battle with the enemy within oneself, Shaitan as the adversary. Sufism interpret this as being the ego nafs, that is, the limited self intent on self-interest and self-importance, which must be subdued in order to advance morally and spiritually.
Were Muslim empires aggressive? Of course, but this has nothing to do with jihad as a an islamic religious concept.
See Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not, The Islamic Supreme Council of America.