Hell on earth

How does one explain Muslim apathy evinced towards mass murder in the Middle East, whether it is perpetrated by the followers of Islam or by world powers?

Share
  • Watchman

    I read the linked article and got to the end and wondered where the promised discourse on “mass murder..perpetrated..by world powers?” went.

    The translated article blames much of the inter-muslim violence on sectarianism and the fight for ‘true islam’, but blames the abject failure of societal infrastructure on islamic fatalism and implacable and obscure predestination. It does’t mention the structure of cultural islam as a tribalist cult bound together by their definition of an ‘other’ instead of common goals and values. It also fails to mention the different external ‘locus of control’ that differentiates with the Western internal ‘locus of control’.

    I would have to say that the West is horrified by murder, but maybe less so by mass murder. The effect of one death, that of Alan Kurdi, allowed the EU to be swamped by hundreds of thousands of undeserving economic refugees. A figure of 6 million dead Jews in WW2 horrifies most people. A figure of 1 million† dead as a result of the 1991 retaking of Kuwait from Iraq and subsequent 2003 invasion of Iraq itself was used to guilt the USA and its coalition partners into attempting to bring democracy to Iraq and create a Western standard of public infrastructure that exists nowhere else but the West. Israel takes the most care in killing its active enemies in warfare, but it is still criticised as being indifferent or worse with regard to these casualties.

    I can only assume that the “mass murder by world powers” refers to the deaths in mainly communist countries: Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China, and the Russian deliberate starvation under Stalin, or the death of a quarter of Cambodians under Pol Pot, or the Tutsi-Hutu massacres (although these last two were not so much world powers). Most of the deaths in Iraq were caused by the Iraqis themselves: first during the post 1991 embargoes and then the Iraqis wantonly killing mostly other Iraqis. An inability to stop the killing without infringing on cherished American values meant that they continued: is the USA responsible because it could not stop the killing, instead of being responsible because it was doing the killing?

    † This 1 million figure is almost certainly exaggerated as it was gathered by people with an ideological interest for the number to be exaggerated and not accurate, but remains incontestable because, like the number of Holocaust dead, the argument would be, “What, are you happy if only half that number really died?”

  • Shebel

    Spoil sport–
    We had a good thing going here.

  • Shebel

    Ok– Did you ever notice that most of ‘Immigrants’ come from Counties that the USA has gone to war against.
    I really can’t remember when the USA has ever actually WON a WAR—
    So , hopefully , the USA will go to war against Scotland or Ireland.
    We need some useful immigrants–
    For a change.

    • Watchman

      I think the principle was shown in the 1959 movie The Mouse That Roared. Start a war with the USA and when you lose demand they create a new Marshall Plan so that your country is brought into the 21st Century.

      These days North Korea seems to be taking the route of extorting the developed world with nuclear weapons in exchange for money and for their tyrants to be left alone.

      The Middle East and Africa threaten to overwhelm Europe with people unless enough money is given to allow them to produce more population, which will be used to threaten Europe unless they are given more money to help them produce more population, and so on.

  • Shebel

    Pull all the troops out of the Mid East and |Africa—–
    If you can’t win the WAR then stay to fuck home.

  • bob e

    This is awful. Get off your knees children. Stand up tall ..

  • Sharkibark

    Why do all those little blond children have their faces pushed into the carpet? And if they were doing it right, the girls would be in the back.