måndag 7 december 2015

Indecent proposal

It seem that islam is going down the same road that christianity did during the 30-years' war. The difference is that the European war was conducted 1618-1648, with the weaponry available at that time. Europe grew wiser and don't have any conflicts that matters between different flavours of christianity today.

So what's happening in the muslim world is essentially a war between sunni and shia sides of islam as the main players, and of course, some of the smaller sects that also call themselves muslims. Of course it is as in the 30-years' war mixed with power politics, regional, national, tribal, financial and other interests. And not conducted with 17th century weapons, but with modern weapons, that are much more capable at destruction and mayhem.

Also, we have the daesh, that is preaching a very strict and intolerant interpretation of islam. Of course, as all religious zealots, they think that they're the only ones being right. The problem for daesh is that there is already a state that is very similar to what daesh tires to create. Saudi Arabia, which was brilliantly described in NY Times. I really recommend for you to read it.

So the 30-years' war had two main contenders for power, the Catholic church and the Protestant movements of Europe.

So who are the main contenders for the muslim power struggle this time? Saudi Arabia, with its very strict interpretation of sunni islam in the form of state sponsored and supported wahabbism. And of course the counterpart, shia islam, which is the fabric of todays clerical rule in Iran. A lot has been written about the conflict between shia and sunni, but the key thing with this religious conflict is that it is severely spilling ower to the rest of the world. Some even state that we are entering into the third world war. It is not totally unreasonable to come to that conclusion.

The problem with world wars are that they're hard to contain. And when the conflict is about whoose imaginary friend (god) is the right one, or if we actually have the same god, but different views of what god really intended, then things are pretty much unsolvable.

So therefore I have an indecent proposal.

Let's assume that the rest of the world is really not interested in spilling blood or money over the shia-sunni argument about which one is right about god. So how should we address the problem?

I just say, let's add some motivation to the game. Of course Saudi Arabia and Iran is not interested in really solving the problem. They're quite happy with their proxy wars, and I suspect that some of the sponsors of daesh can be found among Saudi Arabian nobility. And of course Iran is sponsoring al-Assad and other shia parties out of country.

So how should we motivate Saudi Arabia and Iran?

Here comes the indecent part. Let's assume that we can accept that a world war takes about 5-6 years. So this is the maximum time that we would give Saudi Arabia and Iran to actually come to peace with each other. And clean their own shit, like daehs, Hezbollah et al.

So who are we? Let me see, maybe USA, UK, France, Russia, China? Do you see any trend with the concept of we?

Yes, you're right, they've all got nuclear weapons. So why not offer the Saudis and Iranians the choice between cleaning their own shit and come to peace or actually having their own nukes after 6 years. Of course we couldn't risk that they bombed let's say London instead of each other. So we would deliver them to the Saudis and Iranians. Let's say to Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran, Najaf and Karbala. A couple of hundreds kilotonnes would suffice, I would say.

Of course, this could never be done in public. It should be personally delivered to the king of Saudi Arabia and the mullahs of Iran. But you get my point. Get your act togehter and fix it, or we will, permamently.

Yes, of course a proxy war is "nicer" from a moral standpoint in the sense that it gives a lot of deniability. And yes, it doesn't include nuclear weapons. Of course we could trade the nukes for conventional explosives, although we would require more of them in volume.

So my question is, why should the rest of the world suffer, although we already know who's the problem with Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Egypt etc?

Could we risk a clash of civilisations? Yes, if the muslims really, really, really believe that they could win over USA, UK, France, Russia and China. But I'm quite sure that they wouldn't be that stupid.

So their final option would be to clean their own act. Quickly.

But what the heck, why do something that someone would consider indecent, when you can do the decent thing to continue to fund proxy wars, accept civilian casualties to terrorism and accept atrocities from the warring parties that are really beyond any Geneva convention standards.

It is now time for the muslim world to accept the UN declaration of human rights, without ANY buts and ifs. Everything else will be hypocrisy and cultural relativism from our part.

All humans are created with equal rights, full stop.

1 kommentar:

  1. Jag anser att man luras in ännu djupare i den kulturmarxistiska diskursen när man fördjupar sig i koranen, suror och hadither. Underkastelse(Islam)har aldrig kunnat samexistera fredligt och uthålligt med någon annan religion/kultur. Behöver man gå längre än att översätta ordet "islam"?
    Ingen muslimsk terrorism utan Underkastelse!

    Eftersom kulturmarxistisk diskurs/retorik på ett odemokratiskt och diktatoriskt sätt så gott som fullständigt dominerar all debatt (inkl SD) måste vi ta oss ur den kulturmarxistiska diskursen. Vi måste ta de stora frågorna och inte inlåta oss i en debatt om vad som står i koranen, eftersom de som kan koranen är muslimer med helt andra intressen än vad vi som vill leva i västerländsk kultur har. Vi vet däremot vad Underkastelse innebär och det räcker. Endast så kan vi överleva och krossa kulturmarxisterna. Vi måste sluta kalla Underkastelse för "Islam". I Sverige talar vi svenska!