Telegraph's Damian Thompson blames West for Muslim persecution of Middle Eastern Christians

Torture is certain for Syrian civilians whose homes are invaded by the Mujahedeen. Unless Mosque membership is proven or the apartment contains a prayer rug and Koran the occupants are murdered. Most of the civilian deaths are not from tanks and helicopters but from the blades of Salafist-Jihadists. Thousands of non-believers are filling the refugee camps; it is suicidal for them to remain in Syria.

But Thompson, like so many dhimmi multiculturalists, engages in the same paternalistic patronizing of Muslims that characterizes so much of today's discourse about them: they are never responsible for their actions, but are only passive reactors to the actions of the big bad West, which carries all the responsibility. It's funny how ethnocentric these people who profess to believe in the equality of all cultures really are.

Spencer makes a good point here. And it's no tangential or accidental problem, but rather cuts right to the essence of PC MC (and of the Leftism helped spawn PC MC).

However, I would suggest that when we are widening our focus to look at ways to deal with the problem of Islam, and when we acknowledge that the world is inevitably globalist in interconnections, and when we factor in the obvious superiority of the West not only to Islamic culture but to all other non-Western cultures -- then it seems we cannot manage the problem of Islam by an isolationism, nor by any policy that would presume that Muslims can reform their Islam or that Muslims will abandon their Islam in large numbers sufficient to matter to the problem they are causing through their Islam.

I.e., while Spencer is correct that it is acutely ironic that PC MCs (and their caffeinated brothers and sisters the Leftists) presume a framework of Western-oriented paternalism by which to view Muslims, I would suggest that we who are not benighted by PC MC or Leftism in this regard have no choice but to accept that the classic worldview of Western Colonialism is the gold standard and that no progress beyond that to some kind of Wilsonian universalism that does not expect non-Westerners to adopt Western virtues (which, paradoxically, include universalism itself!) is feasible.

For the most part, we see that non-Muslim non-Westerners have no problem with accepting the West as the gold standard. It is only Muslims who remain the stepchildren from Hell with the soulless eyes of Damien Thorn from the Omen (except, that is, when they feel the need to pretend to be our friends).

I.e., the West has no choice but to be paternalistic with regard to Muslims: the only question is, are we going to regard them as reformable truants who just need three squares and TLC to get back on the right track of reform; or are we going to see them as they are, the incorrigible delinquants who are hopelessly sociopathic and who have grown up torturing and killing mice, cats and dogs, now bullying their schoolmates, committing arson in the school gym, and planning and executing innumerable Columbines already, and who, at best, will sit in the principal's office and simply lie convincingly (to gullible dupes, that is) about how they will be good from now on?

If they remained in their Dar-al-Islamoghetto and did not venture out, that would be another matter. But they have been streaming into our "Dar" for a half century by the millions, and this influx is showing no signs of abatement -- and for that we the West do indeed bear responsibility. The longer we wait to extricate Muslims from our House, the messier, costlier and bloodier will be the result; while the sooner we do it, the more humane will be the process. That's the only choice before us. Either way presumes a paternalism: the former of a kind father and a hopefully reformable wittle rascal of a child; the latter of a stern father who must muster tough love against this unwanted adoption from Hell who will burn down his house, steal his goods, and rape and kill his family if he tolerates him any longer.

All those who continue to do everything in their power (including doing little or nothing) to strengthen our posture of dilly-dallying in this regard are, and will be, to blame for the mess, the cost and the blood likely to devolve because they shirked their responsibility. In this regard, "shirk" really is the worst crime of all.

Go easy on Damian Thompson. He knows that Western guilt feelings are an easy way to keep his reputation as a "hard-hitting" journalist, and he's milking them for whatever they're worth. Further, like most of the rest of us, he probably received a Marxist education (or, more properly, Gramscian) flying under the flags of "neutrality" and "scientific objectivity". Hence, there's an unwritten assumption that everyone from south and east of the Med all the way to the islands of the Pacific Rim is somehow "historyless", and that anything worthwhile or interesting that happens among them happens because the royal, anointed, white, Western "WE" get involved.

Welllll, maybe he was also fed the myth of Islamic tolerance as well; and supposes that the religious minorities of the Middle East all lived in peace, harmony, and interfaith hummus parties Sunday nights before Crusaders, Western imperialists, and Zionists made a hash of things.

And, how could a good,concerned, forwar-looking, enlightened European Leftist bear to pass up an opportunity to tweak Dubya Bush's nose just one more time?

Wow. I read this article in the Telegraph this morning also and I didn't come away with this feeling at all.

If there was one part of it at all that stuck with me the most it was his quote that 100 years about the Middle East was 20% Christian, now it's 5%.

That's not a very dhimmi statement.

Then there's this:

"We have to confront the awkward fact that, for decades, some of the world’s most despicable dictators have protected indigenous Christians from Islamic mobs. When the West withdraws its support from these rulers, Christian minorities are exposed as never before."

This is exactly in line with what has been said on JW and with relation to Israel as well as to Christian minorities.

I read the full article. The word 'Islamism' is used only once in reference to Lord Acton, and in a manner where it's a synonym for Islam, rather than a weasel word to separate a 'good Islam' from a 'bad Islam'.

The British government, despite prodding by the heroic Lord Alton, is doing a good imitation of not giving a stuff about any of this. Maybe it’s guilt: Anglo-American policies helped liberate Islamism.

I do disagree w/ him about 2 things:

• In the section preceding that, he susbstituted the word 'Jew' for 'Christian', and hypothetized that there would be holocaust references had all this been happening to Jews. Actually, there have been anti-Semitic crimes all over Europe, and most people turn a blind eye, not so much b'cos the victims are Jews, but rather, b'cos the perps are Muslims


• He dismisses that there is a coordinated Islamic plot to exterminate Christianity from the Middle East. I only agree that the plots are not co-ordinated, and having ONE universal caliphate may not be the goal. But otherwise, there are separate unconnected plots by Muslims everywhere to wipe out Christians from wherever they exist - Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, the list goes on.

I do have to say that some of these populations have exhibited very anti-Semitic tendencies once they've emigrated, to the extent of carrying the water of the Jihadis for them. I wouldn't blame people who choose not to support them on those grounds.

Of course, that doesn't rule out that he's a dhimmi - I do have to see what he wrote previously. Just that this article doesn't establish him as one.

Persecution of Middle East Christians started over 1400 years ago, and is still going on. The west have nothing to do with it.

The west did not write the Quran.

The west does not have Imam's all over the Muslim world, praying 5 times a day asking Allah to destroy us and make us miserable. The usual Muslim prayer in Arabic always end up with " oh mighty Allah, destroy their (non-Muslims) homes. Make their women widows, make their children orphans, etc..

As a Copt (Egyptian), I know this first hand , during my years growing up in Egypt. I also know our history good enough, and how much have my ancestors suffered and got massacred under Muslim rule. We even have towns in Egypt today with names like "damanhour" translating into "rivers of blood" . Such names were given after the massacres of the Copts (indigenous Egyptians) in that town.

While Muslims did not succeed totally in eliminating the Indiginous Egyptian (the Copts), they managed to do this in the Arabian Pinnusula. This was Mohammed mission when he instructed his followers, that no other religion should remain on Arab land, which translated in the extermination of all the Jewish and Christians (Nassara) tribes & villages that existed at the time. What did the West have to do with this???

While the muslims invadords, did not manage to eliminate us tottaly, they succeeded to supress our culture, identity, an even our native language (Coptic). Our ancestors, had their tongues pulled out and cutt off (barbarically in Public places) if they were caught speaking Arabic.

They falsified our history, brain wahed and pressured us to call our self Arabs. They even changed the name of the country to become " the Arab Republic of Egypt". If Egypt was really an Arab country, why do they need to add Arab to the name. How about "the Egyptian Republic of Egypt" ;-). Even at one time, the word Egypt fell totally from the name, when they called us " united Arab Republic".

Bottom line: This systematic ethnic-cleansing of Middle East Christians (Indiginous population) by the Muslim Arabs is still going on till today. The Muslim deception is outsmarting the gullible "politically-screwed" western media, through useful-idiots like the guy above, or infiltrators, with hidden agendas, and bias opinions like Fareed Zakaria and Christiane Mohammed Amanpour.

This is analogous to CNN and the Jinnah Institute attempting to blame the British for Pakistan's blasphemy law.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/cnn-blames-british-for-pakistans-death-penalty-for-blasphemy.html

Moral imbeciles like Thompson are incapable of logic, and are driven by an almost psychotic need to blame the West for everything that's wrong in the Middle East, whilst simultaneously letting the muslims off the hook.

''... he dismisses the idea that "there is a co-ordinated Islamic plot to exterminate Christianity as a stepping stone to a universal caliphate".

Yes, and he makes no attempt to discover whether there might be, indeed, a *''co-ordinated islamic plot''* to destroy Christianity, and bring about a ''universal caliphate.'' That would entail doing some work, doing some research, reading the koran and hadiths, and listening to some actual muslim 'clerics', who make no bones about their contempt for Christianity, instead of coming to the mentally lazy knee-jerk conclusion that it's all the West's fault.

muslims in the aggregate, it's true, are probably incapable of ''co-ordination'' in this sense, but that doesn't make their hatred and fear of Christianity less palpable. Or their persecution and murder of Christians whenever they get the chance.

If Western governments had backed up Mubarak and Saddam with a show of force, and said they were doing it to protect Christians, weasels like Thompson would have turned on them for that, also, and probably have accused them of 'demonising ' muslims and islam.

Creatures like Thompson don't really give a damn about the plight of Christians in the islamic cesspits; all he wants to do is to come across as cynical, wordly wise, and clever-clever. He's a nasty little pipsqueak.

I read DT in the DT and he's never struck me as being a dhimmi - my take was pretty much in line with Infidel's above.

I just wanted to post that, to his credit, he flagged up, in his previous column the forthcoming Channel 4 programme Tom Holland's "Islam: the untold story" - tomorrow Tuesday 28th 9.00 pm - which should be worth a watch. Supports the thesis of Robert's recent, excellent, book, i.e. they made it all up.