Qur’an Has Everything To Do With it

Fact is that multiculturalism is wrong. It breeds conflict, formality, intolerance. And just FYI: I have no problem with people from Muslim countries coming to Europe – assuming that they return home and use knowledge they gain to better their home societies. But that goes against neoliberal anti-human, anti-nation, anti-Christianity, anti-European policies. One of main goals behind the wars all over the muslim world, one of reasons why US created ISIS, is destruction of traditional Europe and creation of politically correct, shallow, unicultural (Western-type multiculturalism always ends in uniculturalism) United States of Europe, ruled by corporations, for corportations and against people, using intercultural conflicts caused by mass immigration to keep masses in check. These USE are just a step, however, towards creating a north-Atlantic superpower by uniting them with United States of America, Canada and maybe Mexico as well, a superpower where corporations will rule with no law, no democratic institutions and no economic or moral regulative to stand in the way of accumulation of riches.

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

War scenes in Saint Denis, north of Paris. A seven hour battle, one Salafist woman exploded herself, another terrorist was shot dead, but seven were captured alive (police uses blinding stun grenades). The information about their location was obtained in diverse manners, including amateurs videos.

Dalil Boubakeur, head of Paris Grand Mosque, France’s most prominent Muslim, condemned in the strongest words Muslim terrorists. He claims he saw reports on 1,100 Muslim terrorists inside France, who, he insists, should be arrested immediately. I agree. I agree with all the measures he proposes like throwing out bad imams, closing bad mosques, and having all imams being taught French law, and instilling it, etc.

(There are 7,800 “Fiche S” Islamist terrorists in France. Most of them are not followed: following one takes tens of people. There is only one solution.)

War Against Qur’an In Paris, Nov. 18, 2015 War Against Qur’an In Paris, Nov. 18, 2015

However, I do not agree…

View original post 894 more words

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Qur’an Has Everything To Do With it

  1. This guy Patrice has a pretty wild imagination. According to him the US created ISIS and for the purpose of changing European culture.

    This guy is delusional.

    I used to read his post but I stopped listening to his delusional anti-American rants.

    I understand that decisions of the American government facilitated the rise of ISIS but those decisions have to be judged at the moment they were taken not after they turn out bad.

    He has so often criticized the US for dropping bombs indiscriminately and for the Cheney torture doctrine and now France is bombing a city more indiscriminately than the US rules of engagement would allow and he mentions nothing about that.

    I will not even read his full article I have read enough of his B.S.

    • You have to differentiate between United States as a nation and United States corporations – which by the way are interconnected with European corporations, so it is the same thing. ISIS was created by neoliberalism to help destroying traditional values, just as the EU was.

      • What makes you believe this? This is a big statement to make, you must have something solid to back it up?

        It makes no sense to me that US government and/or corporations would create ISIS. To destroy traditional values in Syria & Iraq?

        These people in power are ruthless but to do something like create an ISIS just to increase profits some would mean being incredible sick and demented.

        And, even if they wanted, I don’t know CIA has the ability to create something of that sort

        I just don’t see it.

        • “What makes you believe this? This is a big statement to make, you must have something solid to back it up?”

          Number one, take a close look at how democracy works on a technical level. Then read up on US behavior through the history, on who owns the media, on lobbying and elections. After that, take a look at how US behaved with just about any terrorist and terrorist group – Hitler (US corporations financed his rise to power – see “Wall Street and Hitler”), Mujahedeen, AlQuaeda etc.

          “It makes no sense to me that US government and/or corporations would create ISIS. To destroy traditional values in Syria & Iraq?”

          That is precisely what they tried to do after 2003 occupation. Imposing technocratic government in lieu of a promised democratic one, forcible privatization, allowing destruction of cultural heritage – and disregard for Iraqi culture in general, complete destruction of government sector… Iraqi insurgency did not start immediately after Saddam was ousted, in fact people were very happy that he was out of power. It is when US started destroying very basis of Iraqi society in order to enable profit for its industries – US oil corporations never left Iraq, and still control many oil fields over there, same goes for many other private sectors – as well as to remake the Iraq according to the neoliberal dogma, that first serious insurgency started.

      • Picard, a fantastic and thoughtful comment on a very difficult issue (probably the only real one) to put words on. Is it just me, or do I perceive an Adam Curtis influence (and that’s a very good one) here?
        His documentary “The power of nightmares” makes an excellent job of explaining terrorism, and the often explicit support it has historically gathered from the West (that is to say the US essentially). The eye-opening documentary can be found here http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-power-of-nightmares/ , the last part is especially interesting in the light of current events.

        It is impossible to assess what appears to be a complex situation without looking at history and context, especially when our “free” media and its subjects all appear radiant with notions of freedom and democracy. Still, the ISIS episode will truly remain a sad, sad part in the ever thinning western historic narrative, and add yet another blow the compromised moral high ground of the US.

        It is hard to believe people are actually buying the story of the most powerful military force in the world not being able to eradicate a group of 20,000 people (at most), which most fearsome weapon is a 23mm machine gun on a Toyota pickup. It is hard to swallow the mainstream explanation of how this movement emerged, when all the evidence points to the usual suspects (been this way since the Soviet Afghan war): the US, Israel and the Gulf State. See the Pentagon report in the above comment

        But the saddest part of it all is probably how successful Daesh actually is in showing the shortcomings and contradictions in the tired Western narrative, its ineluctable decline, and its ongoing replacement by a new type of representational system. Impervious to nations, cultures, religions and history, it just spreads and spreads imperceptibly until everything becomes transparent, white, homogeneous, devoid of human life. I very much agree with you calling it “anti-human”, because that’s what it really is.

      • Corporations all over the world did business with Germany both before and after Hitler took power. But saying that they actively facilitated Hitlers rise to power, you would have to explain me that one.

        • Just one example: US corporations (I think it was General Oil) gave Hitler’s Germany knowledge of how to produce synthetic fuel. Without that one technology, it would have been impossible for Germany to even think about starting World War II, as it didn’t have enough natural oil to cover even the most basic needs. Even before that, most of Hitler’s financers were from the West (including Wall Street), and ones from Germany also had close ties to Western financers.

  2. The Media, elections, politics. I know the rich and powerful control (or at least heavily influence) all of that. But, that’s not just US. Its in all of what we call the West. Still don’t see how that explains ISIS being formed by US?

    US funded and armed Mujahedeen when they were fighting Soviets. Just like Soviets financed and armed Viet Cong. Al-Qaeda came from Mujahedeen but was never funded by US after Soviets got out.

    Bankers and businesses look for profits. They took calculated bets with Hitler’s Germany just like they have done with many. That is different than ISIS. How do they profit from ISIS? Only Weapons contractors’ maybe. I just don’t think they would go this far. Maybe initially before ISIS became this monster. But it’s very far-fetched in my opinion.

    In Iraq they wanted to install a puppet government and free markets they could control. Not destroy the country and send it into chaos. They just made some bad management decisions with de-bathisisation idea. Iraqis were rioting and raiding and then quickly started fighting each other. They tried establishing order but underestimated Iraqi cultural issues. By 2011 Iraq was becoming stable but then Nouri Al-Maliki started oppressing Sunni and pushing Kurds out of Baghdad. Majority of Sunni were not happy Saddam was gone. Only the Shia and Kurds. But, the Shia (being Muslim in the end and being influenced by Iran) have a lot of culturally and religiously ingrained hate toward West. Therefore, they wanted US out so they can rule Iraq. I don’t know how creating chaos creates corporate profits. They wanted a stable but puppet Iraq.
    I just don’t understand your claim. Honestly to me it sounds far-fetched and very circumstantial.

    • “Bankers and businesses look for profits. They took calculated bets with Hitler’s Germany just like they have done with many. That is different than ISIS. How do they profit from ISIS? Only Weapons contractors’ maybe.”

      No, not only weapons constructors, albeit they are a major part of it (entire Libya campaign was nothing more than one gigantic sales pitch for combat aircraft and PGM manufacturers). For one, whenever there are large sums of money turning around, you can bet that bankers profit from it as well. Instability in the Middle East also serves to keep US PMCs on the ground and in the business – keep in mind that these never left Iraq in the first place, and during most if not the entire occupation, PMC troops outnumbered US Governmental troops on the ground (US Army, USAF, USMC) by a significant margin. We can also already see first attempts, or at least introduction in first attempts, to send US military back into Iraq in full force, and just like it happened before (2003 Gulf War), that would mean a huge boost to US defense budget – most of it going into procuring new shiny hardware that will not get used in the actual combat, or at least not enough to have any impact at all. Even if that doesn’t happen, sustaining warfare in the region will require large amount of military hardware – Iraqi army is losing its Abrams tanks quite quickly – which means massive profits for US (primarily) and European defense industries. As US and Europe send military to deal with ISIS – even though it is air forces and instructors only for now – maintaining those forces in the area and keeping up bombing campaign also means large profits for the defense industry (PGMs are damn expensive, which is a main reason why they are so popular in defense circles). Instability in Iraq would also serve to keep Iran on edge, and potentially cause instability in there as well. Then there are Saudi interests too, as Saudis do not want a strong Iraq, and even less do they want a strong Iran (same goes for Israel), plus they also practice the same (albeit slightly less extreme) type of Islam as ISIS does. ISIS is also used against Syria, as it basically controls the entire opposition force in Syria (save some minor cells) – any and all the help that US gives to Syrian rebels is nothing more than helping ISIS (licking its head while biting its ass, basically). I don’t like Assad, but if he is deposed, only force capable of taking his place is ISIS – moderate opposition, if it even exists at all anymore, is too weak and too fragmented to do anything.

      Further, instability on European borders will likely produce greater calls for European and transatlantic integration as well as greater focus on security. Focus on security means reduced democracy, greater surveillance and in that vein, significantly increased profits for already huge internal security industry existing in US and Europe. That’s where immigration comes in as well. EU is constantly pushing for federalization (right now it has elements of a loose union, a confederation *and* a full-blown federation), and people have consistently shown themselves to be willing to give up their freedom in the name of security. Further, this insecurity and immigration crisis are already being used to quietly push through TPP, you can see full text of TTP in the link I included after this paragraph (though I didn’t have time yet to read it). Regardless of what impact it will have, it is worrying that there is no public debate on it, and actual text had to come through Wikileaks – immediately sends my alarm bells ringing.

      https://www.wikileaks.org/tpp-final/

      Integration itself would weaken position of nation-states and improve position of multinational corporations which control the European Comission and, to a slightly lesser extent, European Parliament. We are already seeing this on the global scale, with it now being possible for corporations to sue countries for reasons such as state policies causing loss in expected profit for a given corporation.

      Maybe I am overthinking things – maybe Western policy makers (and policy makers in general) simply *are* insanely stupid. But there are too many coincidences and too many parties that profit from this situation for me to simply accept such an explanation. At the very least, they knew that their actions are going to lead to this situation and are now using it, even if they did not directly create ISIS. Which is hardly any better, if you ask me.

      “I just don’t think they would go this far. Maybe initially before ISIS became this monster. But it’s very far-fetched in my opinion. ”

      Bankers and big business themselves are monsters, albeit a different type. To them, humans are nothing but numbers – just look at the terminology used. “Human resources”? “Human resources management”? Quite Lovecraftian, for lack of a better term. Not to mention how they act all the time. Destruction of democracy, of social security net, of whole countries economies… IMF, WB and other “international” organizations under control of the big business forcing countries to implement policies which invariably end up causing economic downfalls, mass suicides, starvation…

      Monsters allying with (or creating) a monster is very far from being far-fetched.

      “In Iraq they wanted to install a puppet government and free markets they could control. Not destroy the country and send it into chaos. They just made some bad management decisions with de-bathisisation idea.”

      Wrong. They knew that their decisions – de-bathisisation being only one of those – will cause chaos. However, they either did not care, or more likely intentionally created and used that chaos in order to push through reforms that would have never passed in an actual, ordered democracy – such as complete elimination of social safety net, mass layoffs in all sectors – not only military, though that was the most problematic with respect to insurgency (most insurgents, and many of not most ISIS fighters today, are ex-Iraqi military) – privatization of at least some oil fields (US oil companies still operate oil fields in Kurdistan and some other parts of Iraq), and in general giving the entire “reconstruction” of Iraq away to US contractors while ignoring already existing Iraqi firms – contractors which then employed mainly foreign workforce, with an odd Iraqi here and there, which in turn caused another (third, after military and state aparatus) round of mass layoffs. All of it giving more recruits and weapons to the insurgents, and ensuring US military and PMCs a long stay in Iraq, which in turn ensured a requirement for new weapons to replace ones given away to equip Iraqi military and also to replace US weapons that were lost/destroyed or worn out by constant usage. Damage to civilian infrastructure caused by all the fighting also meant that firms producing machinery and other things necessary for civilian construction/reconstruction/repair works also always had something to do as well.

      Constant war can be very profitable to some sectors of the economy, as long as it is not on your own doorstep.

      “Iraqis were rioting and raiding and then quickly started fighting each other.”

      Not in the first few months.

      “I don’t know how creating chaos creates corporate profits. They wanted a stable but puppet Iraq.”

      Actually, it does. I have already explained most of it, but to sum it up: chaos prevents people from seeing what corporations are doing in order to create such profits, and in turn corporations, freed from oversight, can operate with near-impunity. Second, war uses up resources at a prodigious rate, requiring neverending stream (more like a flood, actually) of new replacements, thus creating a continuous source of profits (for corporations at least, not so for an average taxpayer or even economy in general).

      I hope it is a bit clearer now. Basically, United States are now running a war economy, not as in “an economical preparedness for war” but as in “a dependance on war”, where a neverending warfare is a requirement for the economic system to preserve itself.

  3. Picard, a fantastic and thoughtful comment on a very difficult issue (probably the only real one) to put words on. Is it just me, or do I perceive an Adam Curtis influence (and that’s a very good one) here?
    His documentary “The power of nightmares” makes an excellent job of explaining terrorism, and the often explicit support it has historically gathered from the West (that is to say the US essentially). The eye-opening documentary can be found here , the last part is especially interesting in the light of current events.

    It is impossible to assess what appears to be a complex situation without looking at history and context, especially when our “free” media and its subjects all appear radiant with notions of freedom and democracy. Still, the ISIS episode will truly remain a sad, sad part in the ever thinning western historic narrative, and add yet another blow the compromised moral high ground of the US.

    It is hard to believe people are actually buying the story of the most powerful military force in the world not being able to eradicate a group of 20,000 people (at most), which most fearsome weapon is a 23mm machine gun on a Toyota pickup. It is hard to swallow the mainstream explanation of how this movement emerged, when all the evidence points to the usual suspects (been this way since the Soviet Afghan war): the US, Israel and the Gulf State. See this Pentagon report (from 2012!), esp. page 5 :

    But the saddest part of it all is probably how successful Daesh actually is in showing the shortcomings and contradictions in the tired Western narrative, its ineluctable decline, and its ongoing replacement by a new type of representational system. Impervious to nations, cultures, religions and history, it just spreads and spreads imperceptibly until everything becomes transparent, white, homogeneous, devoid of human life. I very much agree with you calling it “anti-human”, because that’s what it really is.

  4. As for Iran “religiously ingrained hate toward West”, you should check out recent Iran history. Especially the Mohammad Mosaddegh eviction bu the US (and UK), to protect, surprise surprise, their oil interests.
    Interesting to note in this story that Mossaddegh was actually a secular, Western educated, democratically elected President. Funny how his ousting turned out into the creation of a hardcore dictatorship by a US puppet, only to give way to a no less hardcore Islam state after Khomeini’s coup. No country comes up with a “death to America” song for nothing…

    It’s all in frigging Wikipedia, but I guess ready-made truths are more comfortable, especially when they create an “evil” enemy the “righteous” will get support fighting against.

    • It is far from the only such case. In Latin America, Middle East, Africa.. even North America, Europe and Russia, United States have consistently proven themselves as *the* greatest danger to democracy.

      And yes, “Us vs Them”, “Good vs Evil” is quite a popular narrative, as it is very easy to understand.

      • Of course. Reading “The Trial of Henry Kissinger” is an eye opener (there is also a documentary by the same name). Even more ironic is that he got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for all his work in Chile, Argentina, Timor, Bengladesh… It would be almost funny if it was not this revolting.

      • When you are looking for something and are willing to accept anything that looks like what you are looking for as fact you will eventually find your way to the conclusion you seek.

        I think both of you need to have a higher standard in accepting some of this “evidence” as fact.

        Maybe you are correct in your assumptions but it is based on some very shady evidence.

        I feel like I am listening to my parents argue that the bible has clear proof and its really some very poor and dubious evidence. But, that’s what they want to believe. so they ignore any evidence to contrary.

        There is much more clear evidence to support the common theory of how ISIS, Boko & Al-Qaeda came to be. Then the theories Plastic & Picard references to.

        I would just say that their is some reason to believe such and such but I would not claim this as clear truth. Anyone that does is just showing me that thats what they would like to believe and are willing to accept poor evidence to confirm what they want to believe.

        US is involved in almost everything that happens worldwide and yes there is some exploitation and plenty of poor policy decisions.

        Yes corporations and special interests manipulate many situations to their interests and against common interest. but this is not a US problem its a world problem. US is just much bigger and when you have the biggest most expensive house on the block you get the most attention and people are looking for your grass to get a little too high to criticize.

        When the US intervenes people complain that we are being bully’s. When we let it be, people complain that we should have done something.

        Sub-Saharan Africa in one example. Cuba & Venezuela are two others. Always reading or hearing about people complaining that US does nothing to intervene in those places and we don’t care about those countries problems. When we do intervene and things get hairy people are looking to jump on us.

        Is the US a bully at times? Yes!

        Does the US do some dirty things in self interest at times? Yes!

        Is the US controlled by few elite powerful people and/or corporations? Mostly Yes!

        But, so does everyone else that can.

        There seem to be a lot of French on this blog (probably because Picard strokes their ego) And I hear a lot of criticism of the US and lots of glorifying of the great French republic.

        I am not surprised by this. I grew up with a grandfather (I am 1/4 French) that felt that France was greatest thing God ever created.

        I admit the US has caused quite a few problems externally but so has every nation/empire that has ever been in our position.

        Problem is instead of pointing fingers maybe you all should look at your own house first.

        • There is also the fact that US are currently the nation that is most agressive at promoting neoliberal policies (just take a look at Iraq), albeit EU is no slouch either. This comes down in good part to US own power projection capabilities.

          “When the US intervenes people complain that we are being bully’s. When we let it be, people complain that we should have done something.”

          Problem is in US belief that firepower can solve anything. US basically come in, bomb the hell out of the “bad guys” and get out, without caring about what will come afterwards. Of course, not one of US foreign interventions was for the sake of human rights so the point is kinda moot, but fact is that US do not care about consequences of their actions, outside of wether it will bring monetary profit to US corporations.

          ” Cuba & Venezuela are two others. Always reading or hearing about people complaining that US does nothing to intervene in those places and we don’t care about those countries problems. ”

          That is because US are in major part a cause of these countries’ problems. US forced an embargo against Cuba, and also started a huge number of coups and wars in Latin America in general in order to oust the “undesireables” (basically anyone who didn’t want to accept neoliberal economic policies and US dominance). Nothing new of course, but it is an ongoing problem and an ongoing policy. This is not a historical blog, if it were you can bet you’d hear far more complaining about European countries. It’s just that, right now, United States are the biggest bully on the block. So don’t act butthurt when people complain about it.

          “I admit the US has caused quite a few problems externally but so has every nation/empire that has ever been in our position.
          Problem is instead of pointing fingers maybe you all should look at your own house first.”

          See above. “It was done before by others” is not a valid defense.

        • @Duviel BTW, you probably are not aware of that, but US gave major support to Islamic terrorists – basically ISIL predecessors – during the war in Bosnia. Alija Izetbegovic formed the first terrorist units (unit El-mujaheed, under 7th muslim brigate of 3rd corps of the Army of BiH), and they immediately started with beheadings, eye gougings, ritual murders, desecrations, torture and so on. United States *helped transport Islamic terrorists from Middle East, primarily from Saudi Arabia, to Europe*. That alone proves that United States are not sincere in their opposition to terrorism, even to Islamic terrorism. This behavior continued after the war as well, in Mostar you could every now and then find a Croatian without a head, between 1995 and 2001 there were dozens of attacks by Muslim terrorists, especially against police in the Croatian portion of Federation BiH; yet, have you heard of any of it? Probably not, as US like to pretend that it is all nice and dandy with their shitty division of Bosnia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s