To set the context, the survey results were presented at the U.S.-Islamic Forum held in Doha, Qatar. Ostensibly it was intended to be a conference to discuss relations between the U.S. and Islam, but due to the attendance of and remarks delivered by several highly influential Islamic figures, it regressed into a "blame America" session in which responsibility for terrorist murders was heaped upon Israel, the U.S. and England, in that order, with none ascribed to the terrorists themselves.
One of the prinicple speakers, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni scholar considered as the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and a resident of Qatar, made a remarkable assertion, one that echoes the talking points of the anti-war movement within the U.S. According to al-Qaradawi, the U.S. had gone searching for "an alternative enemy" after the Soviet Union crumbled. According to Al-Qaradawi, "The U.S. has initiated the animosity when the neoconservatives chose Islam as an alternative enemy." Let's examine that statement. What is the Arabic term for "neoconservative"? Is it any wonder that conservatives accuse liberals of siding with our enemies when those enemies use the same phrases and descriptive names (like Neocon) in their rants against America? Did America go looking for war after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? After the Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya? After the bombing of the USS Cole? Based on historical fact, it would seem radical Islam came looking for war, not America. Even a hyper tolerant, suicidally permissive society must at some point strike back, and 9/11 demanded a response that should have been made nearly a decade earlier.
According to al-Qaradawi's website, he is a voice of moderation, this despite his consistent defense of suicide bombings as an acceptable and encouraged practice among "oppressed" Muslims. These are the words of a "moderate" Islamic scholar who is featured frequently on Al-Jazeera network:
Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do," Qaradawi told BBC television in 2004, adding during a press conference around the same time that suicide bombings are "weapons to which the weak resort in order to upset the balance because the powerful have all the weapons that the weak are denied.
Of great interest were the survey results that identified the nations and leaders most despised (feared as a threat) and most admired by the 6 Arab nations surveyed.
In summary, the most despised leaders were:
1. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (in a coma since 2006)
2. President Bush
3. British Prime Minister Tony Blair
The most despised nations (actually phrased as biggest threat to Arabs) were:
1. Israel
2. The U.S.
3. Great Britain
Most admired world figures:
1. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah (leader of the terrorist group Hizballah)
2. French President Jacque Chirac
3. Iranian President Ahmadinejad
4. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
It is fascinating that Jacque Chirac was more admired than Ahmadinejad and Chavez, given that one is thumbing his nose at the West and developing nuclear weapons, and the other publicly stated in the U.N. General Assembly that he could still smell the stench of President Bush's evil in the room after the President had spoken and departed. Apparently France's refusal to join the coalition assembled for the Iraq War is a cherished memory in the Arab world.
There was some good news from the conference, however. Sheikh al-Qaradawi provided the long-elusive solution to the War on Terror: "If America changed its policy [conquering the world by force], we would change our attitudes." Amazing how similar are the talking points and conclusions of terror supporters and our own liberal left. "If we would just withdraw from Iraq, they would stop hating us." "If we would stop supporting Israel, they would stop hating us." "If we weren't so brazenly immoral they would not want to kill us." All of these have been put forth as solutions for the spread of Islamic terrorism by the American liberal left and even by some well-meaning but ultimately misguided souls on the right (D'Souza comes to mind).
Terrorism cannot be stopped by appeasing it, counseling with it, or seeking to understand its root causes, since according to radical Islam the justification is in the Quran regardless of the socio-political climate. It can only be stopped by destroying those who practice it, harbor it, and fund it. That is why Chirac is so popular, as he has attempted none of these. The Arab world clearly wants more leaders like him in power in the West, and influenced Spain's elections accordingly with pre-election bombings. Will they need to resort to that here? If voting trends continue, they will get their wish without further attacks on American soil.
No comments:
Post a Comment