Things are moving pretty fast around the world. Today we see more updates regarding Syria. What is fascinating is how almost every significant event that we observe in the Middle East today represents a piece of the overall puzzle. As more and more pieces come together, we are able to see more and more of the overall picture, but only God has the whole picture. Meanwhile we wait and watch the signs as directed:
The question US President Barack Obama posed Saturday in his dramatic statement from the White House lawn was a profound one: "What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?"
"If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental intentional rules, to governments who would chose to build nuclear arms, to terrorists who would spread biological weapons, to armies who carry out genocide?" the president asked.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on multiple occasions last week that Syria was Iran's "testing ground."
Iran, he said and Obama implied, was watching carefully to see how the world would respond to its client state's use of chemical weapons.
But the Iranians are not the only ones watching. So is Israel. Whether or not Israel decides to act against Iran could be determined in large part by how the world acts now against Syria. And the British parliament's vote Thursday against military action is not a great sign.
"The international stuttering and hesitancy on [a] Syria [strike], just proves once more that Israel cannot count on anyone but itself," Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett wrote on his Facebook page on Friday. "From Munich 1938 to Damascus 2013 nothing has changed. This is the lesson we ought to learn from the events in Syria."
The Iranians, watching this show, are surely calculating what action they could expect if they run at full speed to nuclear capability. One could not blame them for concluding that the French will speak tough, the British will vote military action down in parliament. and Obama will bring the matter to Congress for a vote if Congress is in session. If not, he will wait patiently until Congress re-convenes to ask its opinion.
That kind of international dallying is not the type of behavior that will instill confidence in Israeli leaders that they can count on the world when it comes to Iran.
Besides, if this is how the world acts when some 1,429 people are gassed, how should we expect them to act if Iran just crosses the nuclear threshold, but doesn't kill anybody yet?
Israel is “calm and confident” in the face of regional turmoil, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday at the weekly cabinet meeting.
Speaking hours after US President Barack Obama delayed a military strike at Syria pending a Congressional vote, Netanyahu declared that “Israel is calm and confident. Our citizens know that we are well prepared for any circumstance.”
He added: “The citizens also should be aware that our enemies have very good reasons not to test our strength and might. They know why.”
Minister of Tourism Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beytenu), asked if he trusted Obama, said, “I trust in our Father in Heaven and in the Jewish nation. The American president has spoken, and we need to return to our normal routine.”
But members of the hardline Jewish Home party responded with criticism of the president. The religious-nationalist party’s Ariel declared that “in Tehran, they’re opening the champagne, and switching into a higher gear en route to nuclear weapons.” Ariel noted the 100,000 corpses in Syria, accused the world of doing nothing, and concluded that, “facing real dangers, no one in the world will stand with us.”
In brief, let us examine the beliefs of the Muslim rebels whom we are coming to the aid of. Do we really need to aid those who fundamentally oppose us as if we have no other option?
Islam has no modern view of the state. Instead, it separates the world out in an impossibly black and white, Manichean vision of Muslim, versus non-Muslim. This isDar al-Islam (House of Peace) versus Dar al-Harb (House of War). Non Muslims are either Harbis—People of the Book—being Jews or Christians, who must sign a treaty of non-aggression and pay a tax. Or they are “pagans” who should be immediately liquidated.
According to the most influential Islamic Islamic scholar of the last century, Sayyid Qutb, only Allah could form the outline of society. His writings helped give the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda an intellectual foundation, and he argued a secular society was not really possible. His solution to the world’s problems was Jihad. In fact, most modern Muslim radicals use Qutb as a guide and idol for their anti-Western violence. He taught that both Jew and Christians were the devil’s children Qutb inspired Bin Laden. He wrote,
It is the studied opinion of man Muslim critics that the teachings of Muhammad lead directly to the conclusion that the entirety of the non-Muslim world must be subjugated. Several authors have commented upon the orientation of Islam towards the rest of the globe. John O’Neill, in Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, argues that the Muslim worldview is set in stone, and essentially cannot adapt because the theological presuppositions of Islamic Shariah law are not adaptable to modernization. For instance, judicial floggings cannot be abrogated since Allah himself dictated such punishments. Likewise, Islam’s overall view of the world cannot be changed, either.
Another author claims that the entire purposes of Islam are political—to a create a world religious state by force. M. A. Kahn, in Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery. This books argues…
Obama Risks Embarrassing Loss In Congress
Obama Leaving Door Open To Syria Strike Even If Congress Votes No
Did Putin Threaten Obama With Retaliation?
Fukushima Radiation Levels 18 Times Higher Than Thought
High Radiation Readings Found At Fukushima Tanks
UK Weaning Itself Off Coal. And Electricity
In the world there is only one party of God; all others are parties of Satan and rebellion….There is only one way to reach God; all other ways do not lead to Him….For human life, there is only one true system, and that is Islam; all other systems are Jahiliyyah....There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Shari’ah from God; anything else is mere emotionalism and impulsiveness…. The truth is one and indivisible; anything different from it is error…Our whole environment, people’s beliefs and ideas, habits and art, rules and laws - is Jahiliyyah, even to the extent that what we consider to be Islamic culture, Islamic sources, Islamic philosophy and Islamic thought are also constructs of Jahiliyyah!While propping up another culture, it is contingent upon us to ask what that culture stands for, correct? So in the area of human rights, where does Islam stand? For the Muslim view of human rights, this is a non entity. In fact, there is no Muslim concept of human rights, according to Ann Elizabeth Mayer in Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics.
It is the studied opinion of man Muslim critics that the teachings of Muhammad lead directly to the conclusion that the entirety of the non-Muslim world must be subjugated. Several authors have commented upon the orientation of Islam towards the rest of the globe. John O’Neill, in Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, argues that the Muslim worldview is set in stone, and essentially cannot adapt because the theological presuppositions of Islamic Shariah law are not adaptable to modernization. For instance, judicial floggings cannot be abrogated since Allah himself dictated such punishments. Likewise, Islam’s overall view of the world cannot be changed, either.
Another author claims that the entire purposes of Islam are political—to a create a world religious state by force. M. A. Kahn, in Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery. This books argues…
Islam—more specifically, its doctrine of Jihad or holy war—unequivocally calls for forced conversion and enslavement of non-Muslims and for the establishment of an imperial Islamic rule globally. Thereafter, based on extensive study of the original biographies and traditions of the Prophet, he demonstrates how these commands of the Islamic God, of eternal relevance, were scrupulously applied by Prophet Muhammad: he engaged in forced conversion and enslavement, and established the first imperial Islamic state in Arabia. Through rich historical documentation, this book further demonstrates how Muslims have expanded and perpetuated these paradigmatic models of Jihad over vast parts of the world throughout history to this day. The author predicts that Islamic Jihad, in all likelihood, will intensify over coming decades with serious consequences for humankind, for the infidel and Western world in particular.If the above is true, how could America possibly gain by assisting one side of a Muslim civil war, especially when the persons the US aids are radical, religious fundamentalists, likely to agree with the need for world enslavement of non-believers
Also see:
Fukushima Radiation Levels 18 Times Higher Than Thought
High Radiation Readings Found At Fukushima Tanks
UK Weaning Itself Off Coal. And Electricity
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar