About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

4 Replies to “Caroline Glick excerpt from IQ2 debate on Judea and Samaria (Russian subtitles by request)”

  1. Her argument of what happened to Gaza to Arabs and non-Muslim Arabs after the Jews were removed, you could say is true of what happened to lands of India that were partitioned to create the Indian Muslim state of Pakistan (today is Pakistan and Bangladesh). With the religious cleansing of Hindus and other non-Muslims there both states have become increasingly Islamically fundamentalist. Pakistan in particular became the epicenter of world Islamic terrorism. The only reason, one and only reason, the entire Indian subcontinent is not one big Islamic fundamentalist nuclear Pakistan threat to the world is the presence of Hindus in the majority (at least for now) in India. Pakistan and Bangladesh is India under Muslim majority rule. You do not have to imagine what India would be like under Muslim rule. Huge parts of India was partitioned to create just that.

  2. The British of that time thought to appease Muslims over Jews in the Middle East that resulted in a strategic blunder for Britainlike Glick said and in India favored Indian Muslims over Hindus and the rest:

    [Turkey] had lost her leadership of Islam and Islam might now look to leadership to the Muslims of Russia. This would be a most dangerous attraction. There was therefore much to be said for the introduction of a new Muslim power supported by the science of Britain … It seemed to some of us very necessary to place Islam between Russian communism and Hindustan.
    – Sir Francis Tucker, General Officer-Commanding of the British Indian Eastern Command.

    Pakistan was as much the creation of Britain as it was that of Muslim nationalists of India. It seems the West has tried at different times to wield Islam for its own strategic interests which may work in the short term but inevitably backfires. Today we see the latest version of that with the current US administration and the “Arab Spring”.

  3. Least one thinks the Islam folly is only by US Democrats, the actuality is that both US parties are similar in this regard.

    “…A little over half a century on, driven by the forces unleashed by the tragic events of September 11, 2001, imperial Britain’s Pakistan project is being reinvented. It is hard to imagine a more unlikely caliph than Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, but that is precisely what the United States seems determined to anoint him.

    Pakistan, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Musharraf at their recent meeting in Islamabad, is “a model country for the Muslim world”. Among other things, she praised Pakistan’s president and chief of army staff, who came to power in a coup in 1999, for his “bold vision for South Asia and initiatives to promote peace and stability in the region”.

    Speaking in New Delhi, she emphasized the need to help Nepal – where the monarch has seized power – “get back on a democratic path”. But evidently she felt no need to suggest something of the kind might be desirable in Pakistan as well. If the US felt any ire at Musharraf’s inflammatory proclamation on his official website that the Kargil war of 1999 “proved a lesson to the Indians”, it was not mentioned, at least not in public.

    All of which makes it necessary to ask the question: just what is the United States’ own vision of stability in South Asia – and how precisely does it mean to go about achieving it? …” March 2005 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC23Df04.html

    If the West backed instead non-Muslims and held Muslims to the same standards of human rights as they hold non-Muslims that would work further to create a safer world for themselves and others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *