War vs Islam exactly what jihadists want

gwynne-dyer17.jpg

A LITTLE bit of Latin always raises the tone of an article, so here (with thanks to Britain’s The Observer weekly newspaper) is a sentence that may prove useful to Pope Francis: agite tentaque si fortiores vos putatis. It means “come on then, if you think you’re hard enough.”

Gwynne Dyer

It’s the manly thing to say if you have just punched somebody, and he looks like he’s thinking of hitting you back. Francis has recently expressed the view that “if anyone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch.”

But Francis was not really talking about himself. He was just saying that the satirists of Charlie Hebdo who were massacred in Paris on January 7 had it coming.

“It’s normal,” Francis explained. “You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

He was defending the right of believers of any faith to be exempt from harsh criticism, caricature and indeed any comment that hurts their feelings.

Does he think that violence is justified in defence of the honour of your mother, or your religion? Yes he does. Or if not justified, at least understandable.

At this point in the discussion, Western journalists normally wander off into an extended debate in which some defend freedom of speech at any cost and others insist that you must refrain from mocking other people’s religious views, either because you shouldn’t hurt their feelings or because you’re afraid they’ll kill you.

It’s a great opportunity to pontificate about weighty philosophical matters, but it has almost nothing to do with the case at hand: the terrorist attacks in Paris and the various Western responses to them. Or do you really think that the attacks would stop if everybody promised to say only nice things about Islam?

It is unlikely that Said and Cherif Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly were regular readers of Charlie Hebdo. The target was picked for them either directly by some operational controller in al-Qaida, Isis, or some other Islamist jihadi group or, if they were acting independently, then indirectly by the editor of some Islamist website who was highlighting that magazine as particularly insulting to Islam.

The fanatics who run the extremist networks and websites need insults to Islam, threats to Islam, attacks on Islam in order to motivate the impressionable young men and women who will do the killing and dying for them. If Charlie Hebdo didn’t exist, they’d have found something else. It probably wouldn’t have been quite as crassly insulting as Charlie, but it would have served the same purpose.

High-profile targets that will upset the Western public are what they want, and nothing gets the Western media’s attention like an attack on the media.

For most of a week, that one event in Paris virtually monopolised international news coverage in the European and North American media.

But what was so surprising about it? That you can get Kalashnikovs in Paris? That there are quite a few foolish, lost young Muslim men in Paris?

That some of them will be seduced by Islamist propaganda?
This was a small skirmish in a long — I was going to say “war” — but the strategic objective of France and the other Western target nations should be to prevent it from turning into a real war. It’s the extremists who want a war in which the West “attacks Islam” because that is the best and probably the only route that might bring them to power in the Muslim world.

Western media cannot resist turning stories like the Paris killings into a circus. And Western leaders can’t resist the temptation to do little pantomimes of defiance for the cameras. “We’re not on our knees. We’re standing tall. In fact, look: we’re bravely walking down the streets together.”

And so you get the ridiculous demonstration of “solidarity” among 40 world leaders that led the march in Paris. At least US President Barack Obama had the good sense to dodge that event, although he was sharply criticised for it by all the useful idiots at home who think a war with Islam is just what the West needs.

Pope Francis didn’t go to Paris either. Maybe there’s hope for him yet.

Dyer is a London-based independent journalist.

2 thoughts on “War vs Islam exactly what jihadists want”

  1. kwv says:

    It is no use trying to gloss over the fact that Islam is now where Christianity was about one thousand years ago. That is to say, in a very primitive phase.

    It is not possible to justify violence and murder against those who mock your opinions and beliefs, whether you are Catholic, Baptist or a Moslem. In fact what determines Civilisation is tolerance of divergent points of view, and always has been for some thousands of years..

    Voltaire said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

    When you look at the world you cannot escape the fact that the Islamic religion is used as an excuse for the overwhelming proportion of senseless violence. It is Islam that has to change in order to catch up with the modern civilised world; it is not up to the rest of us to tolerate and accept their barbarity.

    I recently heard a Pakistani person trying to defend forced marriages on the grounds that it was culturally deeply embedded. That is no defence at all, it is wrong. In Africa is was the custom to kill one when twins were born. I think we all agree that was unacceptable, and the custom has been rooted out.

    Please, let us not try and whitewash primitive barbarity because it may offend narrow minded bigots

  2. Isis’abuse of Christians and Yazidi was supposedly acceptable because there were not Muslims. There is no tolerance of non-muslims because they offend Allah. Well why not leave the killing to the creator Allah and all will be happy.

Comments are closed.

Top