Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Gatestone Institute" <list@gatestoneinstitute.org>
Date: May 29, 2013 3:11:14 AM GMT-06:00
To: bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com
Subject: Gatestone Update :: Robert E. Kaplan: The U.S. Helps Reconstruct the Ottoman Empire, and more
Reply-To: "Gatestone Institute" <list@gatestoneinstitute.org>
In this mailing:
- Robert E. Kaplan: The U.S. Helps Reconstruct the Ottoman Empire
- Samuel Westrop: The "Moderates" of Woolwich
The U.S. Helps Reconstruct the Ottoman Empire
Send
Comment
Share: 
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Each of these United States military interventions occurred in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire, and where a secular regime was replaced by an Islamist one. So far, the German policy of keeping hidden its leadership role in its attempt to reconstitute the Ottoman Empire has succeeded.
Since the mid-1990s the United States has intervened militarily in several internal armed conflicts in Europe and the Middle East: bombing Serbs and Serbia in support of Izetbegovic's Moslem Regime in Bosnia in 1995, bombing Serbs and Serbia in support of KLA Moslems of Kosovo in 1999, bombing Libya's Gaddafi regime in support of rebels in 2010. Each intervention was justified to Americans as motivated by humanitarian concerns: to protect Bosnian Moslems from genocidal Serbs, to protect Kosovo Moslems from genocidal Serbs, and to protect Libyans from their murderous dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
Other reasons for these interventions were also offered: to gain for the United States a strategic foothold in the Balkans, to defeat communism in Yugoslavia, to demonstrate to the world's Moslems that the United States is not anti-Moslem, to redefine the role of NATO in the post-Cold War era, among others.
Each of these United States military interventions occurred in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire. In each, a secular regime was ultimately replaced by an Islamist one favoring sharia law and the creation of a world-wide Caliphate. The countries that experienced the "Arab Spring" of the 2010s without the help of American military intervention, Tunisia and Egypt, had also been part of the Ottoman Empire, and also ended up with Islamist regimes.
In the United States most discussions of the military conflicts of the 1990s in the Balkans and the "Arab Spring" of the 2010s do not mention that the areas involved had been part of the Ottoman Empire; these included Turkey, the Moslem-populated areas around the Mediterranean, Iraq, the coastal regions of the Arabian Peninsula and parts of the Balkans. In the areas that experienced the Arab Spring Turkey's role in every instance has been to support the rebels and quickly recognize them as the legitimate government of the country in upheaval.
Turkish leaders do make the connection between the conflicts in the Bosnia, the "Arab Spring" and the Ottoman Empire. Harold Rhode, an American expert on Turkey, has reported:
[President of Turkey] Erdogan's recent [2011] electoral victory speech puts his true intentions regarding Turkey's foreign policy goals in perspective. He said that this victory is as important in Ankara as it is in the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sarajevo, under Ottoman times, an important Ottoman city; that his party's victory was as important in a large Turkish city Izmir, on the Western Anatolian coast, as it is in Damascus, and as important in Istanbul as it is in Jerusalem….
In saying that this victory is as important in all of these former Ottoman cities, Erdogan apparently sees himself as trying to reclaim Turkey's full Ottoman past.
The occurrence that since 1990 each European and Middle Eastern country that experienced American military intervention in an internal military conflict or an "Arab Spring" has ended up with a government dominated by Islamists of the Moslem Brotherhood or al-Qaeda variety fits nicely with the idea that these events represent a return to Ottoman rule. Besides being a political empire ruling a territory and its population, the Ottoman Empire claimed to be a Caliphate with spiritual suzerainty over all Moslems – those within its borders and those beyond. Though it might seem strange at first, the idea of advancing the renewal of the Ottoman Empire on two tracks – breaking down the post-Ottoman political structure and promoting a Caliphate which Islamists say they long for – is really quite reasonable.
Just as the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s and the "Arab Spring" of the 2010s considered in historical perspective suggests that Turkey might be attempting to recreate its former empire, consideration of the Turkish Empire in historical perspective suggests the possible partnership of Germany with Turkey in the project given that, from its creation in 1870, Germany viewed Turkey with its empire as a most valuable client and ally. In the view of the leaders of Germany, Turkey was controllable through a combination of economic intercourse, gifts of educational opportunities, provision of technical expertise and administrative aid, as well as bribes to Turkish officials. Germany saw influence over Turkey as a means of influencing Moslems worldwide for its own interests. Thus as the German scholar Wolfgang Schwanitz has shown, during World War I Germany employed the Turkish Caliphate to promote jihad – riot and rebellion – in areas where Moslem populations were ruled by its enemies Russia, France, Britain and Serbia.
Yet in the 50-odd articles collected in an exploration of the awareness on the part of Americans of a possible Turkish connection with the "Arab Spring," I found not a single mention of "Germany." Only from a link in one of those articles – to an article on the International Criminal Court (ICC) which, with its indictment of Muammar Gaddafi and issue of a warrant for his arrest, provided the "legal" basis legitimizing NATO's bombing of Libya -- which gave the rebels their victory and ended the Gaddafi regime – did I find mention of Germany. From that article, "A Lawless Global Court" by John Rosenthal (Policy Review Feb. 1. 2004 No.123), one learns that the ICC is a project initiated, promoted and, to a considerable extent, funded by Germany. Given this, the idea that the ICC serves Germany's purposes is common sense. Through the ICC connection, Germany's promotion of the "Arab Spring" is clear. Yet it is never or almost never mentioned. This silence calls for explanation.
Later, I did come across an explicit reference to Germany's role in it -- specifically in the war against the Assad regime in Syria -- in John Rosenthal's article "German Intelligence: al-Qaeda all over Syria" in the online Asia Times -- which reports that the German government supports the rebels and their political arm, the Syrian National Council (SNC), against Assad; that the German government classified [made secret] "by reason of national interest" the contents of several BND (German foreign intelligence) reports that the May 25, 2012 massacre of civilians in the Syrian town of Houla, for which Assad has been blamed, was in fact perpetrated by rebel forces; and that "the German foreign office is working with representatives of the Syrian opposition to develop 'concrete plans' for a 'political transition' in Syria after the fall of Assad." So far the German policy of keeping hidden its leadership role in the attempt to reconstitute the Ottoman Empire seems to have succeeded.
Each U. S. military action in Europe and the Middle East since 1990, however, with the exception of Iraq, has followed an overt pattern: First there is an armed conflict within the country where the intervention will take place. American news media heavily report this conflict. The "good guys" in the story are the rebels. The "bad guys," to be attacked by American military force, are brutally anti-democratic, and committers of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Prestigious public figures, NGOs, judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and international organizations call for supporting the rebels and attacking the regime. Next, the American president orders American logistical support and arms supplies for the rebels. Finally the American president orders military attack under the auspices of NATO in support of the rebels. The attack usually consists of aerial bombing, today's equivalent of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries' gunboat which could attack coastal cities of militarily weak countries without fear of retaliation. The ultimate outcome of each American intervention is the replacement of a secular government with an Islamist regime in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire.
Why the government of the United States would actively promote German aims -- the destruction of Yugoslavia (both World Wars I and II saw Germany invade Serbia) and the re-creation of the Ottoman Empire -- is a question that needs to be answered.
Robert E. Kaplan is an historian, doctorate from Cornell University, specializing in modern Europe.
Related Topics: Turkey
The "Moderates" of Woolwich
Share: If politicians and journalists, instead of working with genuine moderates, instead praise the reactions of groups that still aggressively promote Islamism, we legitimize such voices as the future of British Islam, while doing nothing to prevent the continued radicalization.
None of the responses to the Woolwich murder of a soldier, by two Islamists who tried to cut off his head, was revelatory, except for a set of seemingly moderate and sincere statements from British Muslim groups.
While journalists such as Glenn Greenwald and politicians such as Green Party leader Natalie Bennett and former London Mayor Ken Livingstone claimed the murder was a result of Britain's foreign policy, the response from Muslim community groups was, encouragingly, condemnatory only of the killers.
The Muslim Council of Britain said, "This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly." The Muslim Association of Britain stated that they "deplored the horrific attack, murder and mutilation upon an off-duty soldier … They deserve punishment with the full force of the law."
iEngage, an Islamic "civic engagement" organization, added that the "inexpressibly brutal murder on the streets of south London by someone claiming to have a grievance against the British state cannot be justified or excused by any reference to Islam or to its noble teachings." The Islamic Education and Research Academy stated that, "Islam does not condone nor encourage acts of criminality… iERA strongly believes that it is through fostering better understanding of our fellow citizens that will help in uniting our society in good and prevent further acts of violence on our streets."
The most conspicuous lesson from the Islamic reaction has been the almost complete absence of claims that British foreign policy is a root cause of terrorist acts.
Daily Telegraph journalist Cristina Odone wrote that leading Muslim groups' denunciations of the attack, devoid of justification or excuses for the killing, are in stark contrast to many of the Muslim groups' responses to the London bombings in 2005.
Odone concludes, however, that the outright condemnations of the Woolwich murder "prove that Muslim spokesmen are not tacitly supporting jihadists in our midst; and that the Council has learned from its past mistakes … Muslim leaders finally sound like they are on side. Our side."
Odone presumes that Islamist leaders have renounced their extremist beliefs. She does not consider the possibility that Islamist groups may now just be more adept at promoting radical Islamism behind a moderate façade.
As she herself writes, it is the same groups and people who promote violent ideas that are now heralded as brave and important voices of moderation. Odone notes: "The Muslim Association of Britain approved of suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq. Dr Azzam Tamimi, a senior member of the association, said that given a chance to go to Israel, 'I would sacrifice myself; it's the straight way to pleasing my God.' The Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala, later defended this sentiment on Radio 4."
Similarly, the iERA, which described the Woolwich murder as an "act of criminality" includes among its organization three preachers who have been banned from entering Britain because of their support for terrorism and their expressed hatred towards Jews.
iEngage, which claimed the Woolwich attack "cannot be justified or excused," is an extreme Islamist group with a long history of supporting terrorist groups and Holocaust deniers.
Ajmal Masroor, as another example, has been widely praised for his expression of disgust for extremism in general, and the Woolwich attack in particular, stated during an interview with Sky News. The media considers Masroor, previously an advisor on religious affairs to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, to be a leading moderate voice among the British Muslim community.
Masroor, however, is the spokesman for the Harrow Central Mosque, which publicly supports IslamOnline, the website of Yusuf Qaradawi -- an Egyptian cleric who praises Hitler and supports suicide bombings against Jews -- and the Islamic Forum of Europe, a British front group of the violent Islamist organization Jamaat-e-Islami -- whose leaders have been convicted of mass-murder, rape, torture and kidnapping during the 1971 Bangladesh war.
Masroor's mosque provides a platform for Islamist extremists such as Murtaza Khan, who has said:
"Those whom the wrath of Allah is upon, is the Jews, is the Christians. We have become Jews in our clothing, Jews in our eating, Jews in everything that we do, and the other half is Christian in everything we do. Muslims are following one of these accursed nations. And people are still not waking up to understand the fact that these people are enemies towards us."
Is it unfair, therefore, to label these Muslim groups and commenters as "extremist" if they have denounced the Woolwich killings, even wholeheartedly?
It would be far easier to embrace the sincerity of these groups if they had also stopped promoting extremist hate preachers and voicing support for terror groups abroad.
If politicians and journalists, instead of working with genuine moderates, instead praise the reactions of groups that still aggressively promote Islamism, we legitimize such voices as the future of British Islam, while doing nothing to prevent the continued radicalization.
Both Woolwich and Boston demonstrated that terrorists seem to be increasingly self-radicalized. The British government has acknowledged that proposals to introduce "extra powers" to monitor email and phone records would not have stopped the Woolwich murder. The Boston bombers found their inspiration in the widely available al-Qaeda magazine, "Inspire," as well as YouTube videos produced by Western Islamist preachers.
If there are fewer networks, it is harder, often impossible, to track home-grown terrorists successfully. To combat self-radicalized Islamists, then, the security services and police must target the resources used for radicalization. Instead, the Woolwich killings led to expressions of admiration for many of the groups who do promote Islamist ideas, despite their carefully worded public statements.
While these organizations may not openly incite acts of violence, they offer the platform to the preacher that does.
Related Topics: United Kingdom | Samuel Westrop
You are subscribed to this list as bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com.
To unsubscribe, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_unsubscribe.php
To edit your subscription options, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Print
No comments:
Post a Comment