1st June 13:38
Presidential Debate On Pakistan's Nuke Racket
Because of the double bind they're in western leaders find it
necessary to misdefine the problem as 'terrorism' rather than identify
it precisely as islam. In spite of all their weaponry and power thay
avoid tackling the issue - what are they afraid of?
The attack on iraq was not just about oil and israel. It was also a
warning shot across fired the bows of the battleship islam.
Iraq was one of the least muslim of muslim states; it was scorned by
muslim countries that live closer to the faith and despised by much of
the rest of the world. Western leaders saw it as the ideal target for
their display of authority. Thinking that no-one would get overly
upset by an attack on this popularly unpopular nation, they attacked
to secure its oil, to preempt any future attack by it on israel, and
to send a quiet but firm message to islam (and one that could easily
be countered by argument) that '...this is what you'll get if you
don't desist from your insubordination.'
The thing is it hasn't worked. Rather it has added to the centrifugal
forces acting on this multicultural world. And it has encouraged in
the minds of islam that the west has grown too weak to win a war, or
at least too weak to do what is necessary to win. Hence pakistan's
We could win the war in iraq if we employed the methods used to win
the war against germany but our post 1945 philosophy (and its
manifestations) prevents us from defending ourselves.