Posts Tagged ‘ideology’

‘Genocide in Darfur’ – racist pan-Arabism ideology that started its way into the region from Libya

December 11, 2008

‘Genocide in Darfur’ (by Samuel Totten, Eric Markusen) Racist ideology plays an important part of the story, as it has in the history of other twentieth century genocides. And the psychology of “genocide” has become familiar through the sorry repetition of genocidal acts that the last century has witnessed. In 1987, Libya used the northwestern Darfur corner as a backdoor to attack Chad. It had equipped and sent out the so-called Arab legion, an Arab supremacist militia, to pursue Arab expansion in the mineral-rich sub-Saharan regions it bordered and to drive out the African tribes. Libya was not orchestrating a simple border raid on a poor country; it was pursuing a new strategy of pan-Arabism, couched in an emotionally charged ideology.

The Sharp distinction between Arabs and Africans in the racially mixed Darfur region had not been drawn until the ideology of pan-Arabism that came out of the Libya made itself felt… when the GoS tried to impose Sharia Law in 1983, it triggered civil war in the South. This marked the first use of government-backed militias… some of the cattle herding… of Darfur were employed in a strategy of brutality, starvation, rape, and pillage that was to be visited upon Darfur two decades later. Complaints of Arab militia harassment in Darfur surfaced in 2003….
http://books.google.com/books?id=S2a9bDb0qesC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30

Advertisements

PODCAST: The Pax Islamica: Totalitarianism, Islamism and ‘Islamo-fascism’

October 28, 2008

PODCAST: The Pax Islamica: Totalitarianism, Islamism and ‘Islamo-fascism’

Ana Belén Soage

Ana Belén Soage

In this frank and relevant interview, Matthew Feldman, one of the editors of the Political Religions section of Religion Compass talks with Ana Belén Soage, of the University of Granada. They candidly discuss the nature of contemporary and modern politicised Islam.

Soage argues that the so-called ‘moderate’ forms of politicised Islam differ from the more radical forms (epitomised by groups like Al Qaeda) in degree only, not in kind. Any form of Islamist movement, she argues, necessarily requires the formation of a ‘Pax Islamica’; an essentially totalitarian aim. Islamist movements are therefore inimical to democracy as commonly understood. She also sketches out a surprising profile of her typical Islamist, and explains why the term ‘Islamo-fascism’ is so offensive to ordinary Muslims.

Click here to Listen to the podcast

You can also Subscribe to Podcast via iTunes

http://religioncompass.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/podcast-the-pax-islamica-totalitarianism-islamism-and-islamo-fascism/ana-belen-soage

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,, , , , , , , , ,

With or Without Nukes, Iran Is a Mortal Threat

July 11, 2008

With or Without Nukes, Iran Is a Mortal Threat Elan Journo

Imagine that your neighborhood is overrun by a gang. These brutes are wielding crowbars, knives, and pistols in a frenzied spree of home break-ins and mugging and murder. Now suppose the police reveal that their grand strategy for dealing with this gang is to block them from getting submachine guns–as if without such weapons, the gang would no longer bother people. Would you sleep soundly at night? Or would you be outraged? Of course you would, because this gang–even without more powerful weapons–is already a serious menace that must be stopped.

Now, what would you say if this ridiculous what-if scenario resembled our actual response to the very real threat from Iran? Ever since taking U.S. embassy staff hostage in 1979, the Islamist regime in Teheran has led an international spree of bombings, hijackings, and other terrorist attacks on Americans and Westerners. Now politicians and diplomats, who put up with Iranian aggression for years, are loudly promising to block Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

On the campaign trail, for instance, the candidates debate how (i.e., with or without preconditions) they’d negotiate to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuke–on the idea that without such a weapon in Iranian hands, everything will be hunky-dory.

But the uncomfortable truth is that if the mullahs got a nuke, Iran would not suddenly undergo a Jekyll-and-Hyde transformation from a friendly neighbor into a rabid enemy. Iran long ago proved itself a threat that must be stopped; a nuclear arsenal would only make it a far worse threat.

For three decades the ayatollahs of Iran have been using proxies–such as Hezbollah–to carry out murderous attacks. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps helped create and train Hezbollah, which hijacked a TWA airliner and which kidnapped and tortured to death American citizens. Iran pulled the strings behind the 1983 bomb attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon and later the barracks of U.S. Marines, killing 241 Americans. Iran also orchestrated the 1996 car bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. servicemen died.

There’s more: The 9/11 Commission found that “senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives,” and that “8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi ‘muscle’ operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.” During the Afghanistan war, Iran welcomed fleeing al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Today, according to the U.S. military, Iran is running training camps near Teheran for Iraqi insurgents, who return to Iraq to practice and train others in their bomb-making skills. There’s also growing evidence that Iraqi insurgents get bomb technology from Iran.

What’s going on here? A rational assessment of Iran would have to recognize that the mullahs in Teheran have been conducting a proxy war against America. The inspiration for this war is Iran’s jihadist goal of imposing Islamic totalitarianism globally. Iran is a leading sponsor of jihadists and the self-identified role model for exporting its Islamic revolution to other countries. It is the sworn enemy of the West. We should take seriously its call to bring “Death to America!”–because it has already done so.

But too many American diplomats and commentators refuse to judge Iran. Instead, they regard its past hostility as a string of disconnected crises, unrelated to Iran’s ideological agenda. They avoid naming the nature of the regime and behave as if its acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be the decisive event. But that particular weapon–despite its power–cannot be the whole story, since we don’t worry about other countries, such as France and Britain, having nukes. The rarely admitted difference is that the regime in Iran would eagerly press the launch button.

This fear-the-weapon-not-the-killer mentality refuses to understand the threat posed by Iran right now. This view holds that only the concrete facts about Iran’s arsenal have any practical significance, while its abstract, ideological goals and character can be disregarded with impunity. But whether Iran uses one nuke, or attacks with more conventional weapons, its victims are still dead. Our leaders’ narrow concern with Iran’s nuclear capability cannot make the regime’s longstanding hostility to America go away. Americans should face the real character and conduct of the Iranian regime, before it is too late.

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/index.php?id=289