As Turkey prepares to move into Syria, it is useful to recall, as an insight into a widespread Turkish mindset, a July 8, 2019 column entitled “Stopping Western Civilization” and published in the Turkish pro-government Milli Gazete daily. Here is MEMRI’s summary:
Turkish columnist Mehmed Şevket Eygi asked readers: “Can we allow Western civilization to destroy the world and humanity?” He said that the West was “a civilization not of peace, but of war” and that it was “colonialist, imperialist, extremely capitalist, selfish, and hedonist.” He warned that “if the West is not blocked, if no one hits the breaks[sic], humanity will collapse. The religion of Islam and the Muslim world will do this service of blocking and hitting the breaks.[sic] In one way or another.” He further said that “the imperialist Zionists want to take the world under the domination of Israel by starting a civil war between Muslims and Christians in Europe. If this war does not happen as they want it to, they may be erased from history.”
Following are translated excerpts from Mehmed Eygi’s column.
“The West Is Colonialist, Imperialist, Extremely Capitalist, Selfish, And Hedonist”
“Can we allow Western civilization to destroy the world and humanity?… What has this civilization done? What is it doing? It is making and destroying. It did many things and destroyed them in the first two world wars. It is bringing the world and humanity to the third big war, and this time no stone will remain on top of another, nor will a head remain on a torso, there will be a return to the stone age. If we allow the West to do this, we will be committing suicide together with the West. The West advanced very far in the sciences and produced atomic bombs and nuclear weapons. Today there are enough nuclear weapons stored to kill humanity not one time, but a few thousand times…
“Colonialist, imperialist, extremely capitalist, selfish, and hedonist”? The peoples of the West long ago ceased to be either “colonialists” or “imperialists.” Some Western countries are “extremely capitalist,” such as the United States, moderately capitalist, as Canada, and socialist in still others, as Denmark and Sweden. The West is hardly “selfish.” The U.S. has by itself given unstintingly, nearly $3 trillion in foreign aid since 1950; Europe has given an equal amount. The Muslim members of OPEC, by contrast, have received $25 trillion from oil revenues since 1973 and have given away almost none of it — a few billion dollars — and that always to fellow Muslims. Perhaps Eygi would care to comment on that disparity.
The West, he claims, will “destroy the world and humanity. It will mark a return to the stone age.” How is the West doing this? Apparently by having lots of nuclear weapons. But atomic weapons not only hastened the end of World War II and saved hundreds of thousands of lives, but also were what kept the peace during the Cold War, with the policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Does Mohamed Eygi have any reason to believe the West is “suicidal,” as he claims? Why didn’t the West, if it is so hellbent on destroying things, not use a nuclear weapon, say, on Iran? For that matter, why haven’t the diabolical Israelis who apparently control everything, and have hundreds of nuclear weapons, not used them against the Islamic Republic? Could it be that “the West” — America, Israel — is not as irredeemably evil as Eygi appears to believe?
“The West has ruined the ecological balance of the world. As the ices melt, water will come flood the shores, and hundreds of millions of people will be made miserable. Western civilization is a strong, superior civilization but it has a structure that does not obey creation, the world, and human dimensions. Western civilization has broken off from wisdom, from good sense. Western civilization is a civilization not of peace, but of war. The West is colonialist, imperialist, extremely capitalist, selfish, and hedonist. The West will not leave the Islamic world, which has a population of one and a half billion, alone to lead a life suitable for its religion and its civilization. The West sees democracy as a fundamental requirement not open to discussion, but does not recognize this right for Muslims.”
So it’s the West alone that has ruined the “ecological balance” of the world? Really? By this, Mehmed Eygi means that it is the West that is responsible for the carbon emissions that lead to global warming. He hasn’t kept up with the latest data. The United States was once the biggest emitter, but years ago it was overtaken and surpassed by China. China has more than 3 million factories, ten times the number in the U.S., and many of them are colossal in size. China has 350 million motor vehicles, and its number keeps rising, while the U.S. has 260 million, and its numbers are flat. China surpassed the US as the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2006 and is now responsible for 27 per cent of global pollution, according to energy giant BP. It emits more carbon dioxide than the US and the EU combined.
Mehmed Eygi may not realize it, but fossil fuel use in Europe — the most important part of “the West” — has steadily decreased, while there has been a steadily increasing use of renewables, solar and wind energy. Outside the West, use of fossil fuels is increasing, and not only in China. India’s carbon emissions are growing faster than in either the U.S. or China. One country that Eygi might want to look at is his own, Turkey, where fossil fuel use is steadily increasing, and in 2017, the country emitted 526 million tons of carbon emissions. It is not now the West that is “ruining” the “ecological balance,” but China, India, Russia, and many third-world powers such as Turkey.
Carbon emissions are not the only problem causing “ecological” disaster. So is the massive destruction of trees that naturally soak up and trap co2. Since 1978, over 750,000 square kilometers (289,000 square miles) of Amazon rain forest have been destroyed across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana. Why are these trees being destroyed? So that they may be replaced with farmland, and the raising of livestock, chiefly cattle. Eygi does not mention the harm done, to the climate, not by the West, but by these third-world countries that are destroying the Amazon rain forest and the trees that are so critical to trapping co2. This way of harming the world’s “ecology” is something Eygi fails to recognize.
Eygi should simply have said that all the industrialized economies of the modern world have been built on fossil fuels, that those fossil fuels are used everywhere, and that the West is no longer the main offender; since 2006, China has been by far the greatest contributor to global warming, with more co2 emissions than the U.S. and Europe combined. But that would not have fit Eygi’s charge that “the West” is responsible for everything that ails the world.
Eygi continues:
“Ninety percent of the wealth of the people of the West are in the hands of 100 families, people, and institutions. Most of the West has fallen into the clutches of atheism. If the West is not blocked, if no one hits the breaks [sic], humanity will collapse. The religion of Islam and the Muslim world will do this service of blocking and hitting the breaks [sic]. In one way or another. The West has broken its bonds with the Creator. Wouldn’t it have been good if the First World War had been prevented? Wouldn’t it have been good if the Second World War had been prevented? Unfortunately, they happened, and caused great catastrophes, destruction, and slaughter. The third world war has not broken out yet. We have the chance to stop it. Only Islam and Muslims can do this…”
Eygi’s insistence that “ninety person of the wealth of the people of the West are in the hands of 100 families, people, and institutions” is impossible to either accept or refute, because we have no idea what those words “people” and “institutions” mean. Who are those “people? Does he mean “Americans”? “Jews”? “Malefactors of great wealth”? And what does he mean by the word “institutions”? Does he mean to include universities, which in the U.S. have $560 billion in endowments? Is he counting call charitable institutions which, in the U.S. alone, annually receive $420 billion? Yes, there is a great concentration of private wealth in the U.S. — much less so in Europe — but it is far from being as concentrated as Eygi believes. In the United States, where the concentration of wealth is greatest among the major economic powers, 100 families do not own 90% of the wealth. Instead, 1%, or 3.3 million people, own 40% of the wealth in the U.S. That’s a dramatic difference.
Mehmed Eygi believes that though the West, he surprisingly admits, is “a strong and superior civilization,” only Islam and Muslims can prevent a third world war from breaking out. That’s because Muslims are everywhere at peace, while the West is aggressive and hostile. It was “the West” that, Eygi claims, caused World Wars I and II. It would be more accurate to say that the true “West” of liberal democracies and human rights — England, France, the U.S. — did not start World War I, but fought against the aggressors, that is, the militarists of Austria-Hungary and Germany, and the Hamidian horror of the genocidal Ottoman Empire. The Second World War was fought against three powers: Militarist Japan, which was never part of the West, while both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were no longer part of the West, except geographically, for they both utterly rejected the Western ideals of democracy, human rights, and tolerance.
Eygi claims that “only Islam” will be able to prevent a third world war. That war, he claims, would be started by the West. But is this true? Where has Islam been able to prevent wars? Islam is a fighting creed; Muhammad himself participated in dozens of military campaigns. The Qur’an commands Believers in 109 verses to take part in violent Jihads against the Unbelievers, to “fight” and to “kill” and to “smite at the necks of” and “to strike terror in the hearts of” the Unbelievers. How does this permanent call to arms comport with Eygi’s claim that Islam alone can prevent a third world war?
Today, all over the world, there are many armed conflicts, and most of them involve Muslims. Let’s do a little review of these conflicts. We could start with the Jihad being conducted against Israel by the Fast Jihadists of Gaza and the Slow Jihadists of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, a Jihad which has no conceivable end for the Muslims except the disappearance of Israel. The West seems to think the Arab-Israeli conflict is a “problem” that can be solved: it is, rather, a situation to be managed. In Syria, since 2011 a civil war has been raging, between the Alawite-led military of Bashar al-Assad and the mainly Sunni opposition. Five million Syrians have left the country, while another six million have been internally displaced. Those who have left their homes constitute fully half of the Syrian population of twenty-two million. In Iraq, ever since the despot Saddam Hussein was removed, the outnumbered Sunnis who had been privileged during Saddam’s rule are still unwilling to acquiesce in their loss of power, while the Shi’a Arabs who outnumber them 2-to-1 are not about to relinquish their newfound political and economic power. In tiny Bahrain, the Sunni ruler has managed to suppress the protests of his majority-Shia population by making use of Saudi and Pakistani troops. Qatar is enduring the third year of a blockade, and a cutting of diplomatic and trade ties, by Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt, meant as punishment both for its good relations with Iran and for its continuing support of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Yemen, a civil war between Shi’a Houthi rebels and the Sunni government has become a proxy war, as well, between Iran, backing the Houthis, and Saudi Arabia (and the Emirates) backing the Sunni government. This war began in 2015 and shows no signs of stopping.
In Iran, the government has since 2003 been dealing with a low-level insurgency in Baluchistan, on the border with Pakistan, which has its own Baluchi insurgency to contend with. In Afghanistan, America’s longest war continues, with trillions having been spent. Nonetheless, the Taliban has managed to retake control of about half of the country. In Pakistan, war is made on Christians by Muslim vigilantes. Churches have been bombed, Christians killed singly and in groups. Some have been accused by Muslim coworkers of blasphemy, others of doing such things as drinking from a communal glass used by Muslims. Some have been attacked not for anything they did, but for what Christians thousands of miles away have done. Attacks on Christians in Pakistan spiked, for example, just after Jyllands-Posten, in Denmark, published its cartoons of Muhammad. More than twenty years ago, in 1997, John Joseph, the Bishop of Faisalabad, committed suicide to protest the horrific treatment of Christians in Pakistan and the failure of the government to protect Christians or to punish their tormentors. Since 1997, treatment of Christians has only gotten worse.
In North Africa, there is also conflict among Muslims. In Egypt the military regime of Abdelfattah el-Sisi is engaged in fighting both the Muslim Brotherhood and remnants of the Islamic State in the Sinai, a conflict that shows no signs of winding down. Meanwhile, Muslim terrorists continue to attack Coptic churches, pilgrims, and worshippers. In Tunisia, an uneasy peace reigns between the secularists, headed by Caid Beji Essebsi, and those who follow the “moderate Islamist” Rachid Ghannouchi of the Ennahda Party. In Libya, various militias, based in Benghazi, Tripoli, and Zintan, have since the overthrow of Qaddafi in 2011 been vying for power through armed struggle. Every week brings fresh news of a supposed “victory” — now by this side, and now by that — but the end is nowhere in sight.
There are other intra-Islam conflicts: the Berber protests in Algeria that call for greater recognition of Berber culture and use of the Berber language; the Kurdish struggle for autonomy in Iraq and Syria and Turkey. In Afghanistan, the Sunni Taliban were waging a war of extermination against the Shi’a Hazara, a war that was halted only when the Americans arrived. Should the American military pull out of Afghanistan, who will then protect the Hazara? Or does Mehmed Eygi deny that there ever was such a campaign against the Hazara, because Muslims are essentially peaceful?
And there are the many Islamic terrorist groups: Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra Front, Al Shebaab, Abu Sayyaf, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are the best known, that have brought death and destruction throughout the Muslim lands, and also into the heart of the West. About these groups Eygi has nothing to say.
In Turkey itself, the military continues its campaign against the low-level insurgency of the Kurdish PKK. But Mehmed Eygi doesn’t mention that campaign, just as he doesn’t mention the various wars among Muslims based on ethnicity (between Arab and non-Arab), sect (between Sunni and Shia), level of religious fervor (between mainstream Muslims and “Islamists”), and on political rivalry (between those who, even if identical in ethnicity, sect, and religious fervor, are nonetheless competitors for power). About the violence in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Eygi remains silent. It would spoil his narrative of a third world war caused by the West, which only peaceful Islam can halt.
“Will Islam will be able to stop Western civilization? The imperialist Zionists want to take the world under the domination of Israel by starting a civil war between Muslims and Christians in Europe. If this war does not happen as they want it to, they may be erased from history. Laicism and secularization, meaning separating religion from the world, are the bridge to irreligiousness and atheism. The enemies of Islam, since they understand that they cannot erase Islam and the ummah entirely, want to produce a new squeaky-clean, moderate, and reformed Islam that is humanism or an ideology of people, that is Islam only in name…”
So according to Eygi, it takes Israel — that is, “the Jews” — to deliberately start a civil war between Muslims and Christians in Europe. But how would Jews do that? Have they been writing the columns of Al-Qaradawi in Qatar? Or serving as speechwriters for Mohamed Al-Tayeb, the Sheikh Al-Azhar? Or distributing blood-chilling Friday Sermons to imams across Europe that denounce the Infidels? There is no need for sinister Israeli ventriloquists; Muslim clerics have been denouncing Unbelievers for the past 1,400 years. And they continue to do so, unhindered, right in the heart of Europe.
Of course, there is rising tension between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe. It is entirely a function of Muslim behavior and attitudes. Many of the 46 million Muslims who have arrived in Europe in recent decades have done so as economic migrants, eager to take advantage of the many benefits that generous European welfare states have lavished upon them: free or highly subsidized housing, free education, free medical care, unemployment payments (sometimes even without having had previous employment in Europe), family allowances, and more. These Muslims have higher rates of unemployment, and much higher rates of criminality (especially for violent crimes such as rape and murder) than either the indigenous non-Muslims or any other non-Muslim group of immigrants. None of this is the result of a Jewish conspiracy to start a civil war. Muslims, too, have been largely unwilling to integrate into Western societies. That is not a result of diabolical Jewish manipulation. The Qur’an tells them that they are not to take Jews or Christians as friends, “for they are friends only with each other.” (5:51) They learn, in the Qur’an, the while Muslims are “the best of peoples,”(3:110), non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings.” (98:6)
When Muslims take over whole streets and squares in European cities for prayer, in violation of the law, they have not been trained by Jews to behave this way. When they establish their No-Go Zones, where non-Muslims are made to feel distinctly unwelcome, and even the police fear to enter unless in groups, they were not following instructions from Jews behind the scenes. When Muslim grooming gangs in the U.K., that over many years destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of victimized British girls, this had nothing to do with Jews. And those grooming gangs led many people in the U.K. to think ill of Muslims and Islam. Their horror and revulsion at the gangs had nothing to do with Jews stirring up trouble; it was a perfectly understandable reaction to the Muslim criminals and their crimes. The only question that remains is why it took the British authorities so long to investigate.
When Mehmed Eygi warns about the “imperialist Zionists” who “want to take the world under the domination of Israel by starting a civil war between Muslims and Christians in Europe,” he is trying to deflect attention from the hostile and aggressive attitude toward Christians, commanded in Qur’anic verses, of many Muslims in Europe. Instead, he points to those who have become for Muslims the permanent villain: “the Jews.” These “imperialist Zionists” he denounces are apparently not very good at the imperialist game. Certainly they are far less impressive than the Ottoman Turks, who controlled for centuries a vast empire. These “imperialist Zionists” live in a country that is less than 1/1,000 the size of the Arab states, a state so small that you can scarcely see it on a world map. Some imperium. If they are “imperialists,” then where is their empire?
Eygi continues:
“If this war does not happen as they want it to, they [the ‘imperialist Zionists’] may be erased from history. Laicism and secularization, meaning separating religion from the world, are the bridge to irreligiousness and atheism. The enemies of Islam, since they understand that they cannot erase Islam and the ummah entirely, want to produce a new squeaky-clean, moderate, and reformed Islam that is humanism or an ideology of people, that is Islam only in name…”
If the Israelis don’t manage to start a civil war in Europe between Christians and Muslims, then they will likely, in his view, disappear, be “erased from history.” But why? For seventy years, Israel has existed without needing any kind of war between Christians and Muslims to sustain it. Why should such a war be vital to its survival now? Eygi doesn’t offer an explanation. He provides instead a series of statements, each more implausible than the next, which we are supposed to take on faith.
Then he discusses those who want to reform Islam. He is deeply contemptuous of these would-be reformers. They are, in his view, “enemies of Islam” from within who want to change it, to make it “new squeaky-clean, moderate, and reformed,” that is, into an “Islam only in name.” All these Muslims who want to reform Islam are not Muslims at all; for Eygi, their so-called “reforms” would only deprive Islam of its essence. But what is its essence? Not something that is mere “humanism.” Eygi wants Islam to remain as it has been for the past 1,400 years, the faith that relentlessly, and unapologetically, wages Jihad. And as the Muslims in Europe continue to do so, by whatever instruments prove most effective (terrorism, conventional warfare or qitaal, propaganda, wealth, demographic Jihad), the mild-mannered Europeans will finally be pushed, not by the machinations of “imperialist Zionists,” but by the outrageous and menacing behavior of Muslims themselves, to physically fight back. Eygi calls this a “civil war.” But that implies that Muslims have long been in Europe, are part of Europe, with as much right to be there as the indigenous non-Muslims. That’s incorrect. They are invaders, helping to destroy from within what Mehmed Eygi dared to admit is a “Western civilization [that] is a strong, superior civilization.” And any European response adequate to the task of removing the menace should be identified correctly, not as a civil war, but as a “Reconquista.”
Terry Gain says
Turkey has launched its attack on the Kurds. This is the low point in Donald Trump’s Presidency.
mortimer says
God save the Kurdish people from all-out genocide by Erdogan. He’s just the man to do it. The Kurds have fought for their freedom. A plebiscite should be taken of all the Kurds by the UN and the people should be given the right of self-determination.
gravenimage says
Turkey started attacking the Kurds as soon as we left.
elee says
Some allege that the Turkish aim is to install an ISIS-friendly Kurdish puppet in northern Syria and encourage the puppet regime to expand to the southeast, displacing Yazidis and Chaldeans. Do not bind the cause of oppressed Christians and other kafirs, to the fate of one American politician. Its too important to go down with him. And no one has yet answered my query: what is Trumps transaction with Erdogan?
mortimer says
+ 1. (Yes, don’t abandon the Kurds and the Assyrian Christians AGAIN.)
PlasticGangsta says
It certainly is bit I do not expect that it will be the low point for long. I am sure that Trump can and will sink lower. What a shame to.see how far America has fallen in just a couple of years. They used to stand for something….. how the mighty have fallen.
mortimer says
So Mr ‘Plastic’ … you want more foreign wars? Is that what you are saying?
Stuart DeQuincy says
I can see my comment same as you and I did not say anything of the sort. No, I do not want to see more foreign wars and I can comment as my country stands alongside the Americans in almost all of them and not with supportive rhetoric but with “boots on the ground” What I am saying is that this war is already on going and the Kurds have fought loyally alongside the Americans in practically every middle eastern conflict they have been involved in. They deserve better than to be stabbed in the back trussed up and delivered to Erdogan and Turkey just like a Christmas Turkey (you see what I did there? he he) If the US under Trump can betray the Kurds then what chance does Taiwan have or the UK for that matter. Your country has been spending blood and untold treasure to build the network of friends and allies you have created since WWII. Why would you let Trump destroy all that in a couple of years?
Lydia Church says
Mehmed Şevket Eygi is obviously in the pope’s back pocket…
gravenimage says
This is mainstream Islam.
gravenimage says
As bad as the Pope is, the idea that he is behind Islamic supremacism is just silly; this much predates the current pontiff–by almost 1400 years.
w says
Of course he completely ignores all the death and destruction caused by Islam in the last 1400 years. Islam is of course a ‘religion of peace’ and never does anything wrong!. They used to say of Christopher Wren,” If you seek his monument look around you”. This refers of course to his churches. We can say the same about WESTERN CIVILISATION. If you seek its monument look around you. All the benefits of Western Civilisation are plain to see. and for Muslims to enjoy too as they do, that is why they come to live here. At least we in the West have a civilisation. The Muslims only have barbarism.
infidel says
Meanwhile in India, Muslims stone an Hindu procession… 8 animals arrested
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/city/lucknow/shocking-stone-pelters-attack-durga-puja-procession-in-ups-balrampur/videoshow/71502632.cms
FYI says
It is the immoral and wicked cult of al LAH the pagan Arab god of the muslims that is one of the key forces destroying the world with its..
false god al LAH{“The BEST of deceivers” k3:54}
false Commandment-of-God violating teachings of the unholy koran
{ A book that PERMITS Murder,child brides,polygamy,stealing..}
false prophet muhammed{a mass murdering Abu Dawud 4390,Child-raping liar}
Endless jihadism
Doctrine of hate{al walaa wal baraa}towards ALL non-muslims
Everywhere the fraudulently pious muslims go like this turkish hypocrite,they bring their wicked ,evil,cult
islam is an abomination.
1,400 years of mass-murder and mayhem,stealing from infidels,invading their lands and endless wickedness pretending to be holiness.
islam is an IMMORAL pagan Arab cult.
Edward Boyce says
ISLAM is a fake and violent religion!
mortimer says
It is not true that the United States is not doing enough in international humanitarian aid compared with Turkey.
If you look at the amount of foreign aid that a country is spending (per capita), Turkey’s per capita foreign donations are low in comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors
Sweden made the largest contribution as a percentage of gross national income (GNI) at 1.40% and the United Nations’ ODA target of 0.7% of GNI was also exceeded by the UAE, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
The largest donor countries in 2015 were the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and France, though China, acting outside the DAC apparatus, made higher donations overall than any individual country, with more than double the GNI percentage of the United States.
Net official development assistance by donor
United States $31.08 billion $95.52 0.15
United Kingdom $18.70 billion $284.85 0.67
Germany $17.78 billion $214.73 0.49
European Union institutions $13.85 billion[3]
Japan $10.4 billion[4] $73.58 0.21
France $9.23 billion $137.35 0.36
Sweden $7.09 billion $701.10 1.36
Netherlands $5.81 billion $338.38 0.76
Canada $4.29 billion $122.04 0.25
Norway $4.28 billion $812.58 1.14
Turkey $3.91 billion $47 0.17
The US also acts as the policeman of the planet providing security and maintaining stability for many countries that would otherwise become the prey of stronger countries in the region. That is also a major contribution of the USA to world development.
mortimer says
The above table has three columns: 1) total donations 2) donations per capita 3) percentage of GNI.
PlasticGangsta says
I agree with then majority of your premise except you really should say. “The U.S. used to act as then policemen of the planet and used to provide security for many countries” Since Trumpnentered the White House he has betrayed everything that America stood for and has made America unreliable as the current abandonment of your loyalist allies in then middle east, the Kurds. All in favour of a country that hates us in the west and is no longer a loyal NATO ally but is actually in the process realigning with the Russians… Turkey, where this deluded old fool that wrote the OP is from. If you are willing to serve up the Kurds to an emerging enemy like Turkey then how do you expect anyone to trust you as long as that orange moron with a terrible syrup is in the White House. You sanction your friends and allies throwing your economic and military power around to fulfil a purely nationalist agenda designed to make America richer and everybody else poorer. Tell me how does that make America any different to Russia or China. My country the UK has always been your closest ally and I was always proud to follow you guys as leaders of the Free World. Now I like to believe Trump is temporary but that the “special relationship” is permanent but if Trump gets a second term then in my opinion it means that America has turned permanently to the Dark Side and the Free World will be leaderless. The UK has always stood by your side and supported you. Not so my with supportive rhetoric but with “boots on the ground” Wherever in the world an American soldier watches the sun set there is likely a British soldier watching the same sun set. Wake up America, it has taken since WWII to build up the alliances friendships and goodwill you have earnt with blood and treasure do not let Trump the row it all away.
PlasticGangsta says
Sorry guys I cannot edit my post and I am doing this on a phone. I apologise for the mistakes.
Terry Gain says
No need to apologize. Everyone but me makes mistakes. 🙂
elee says
+1. You have communicated well and forcefully.
Wellington says
PlasticGangsta: Couldn’t disagree with you more with the exception of being in accord with you about Turkey under Erdogan..
Trump has moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Israel is the only truly free country in the Middle East and deserved this from America. Trump has also pulled us out of the worst, most despicable deal ever made by a US President, i.e., the Iran nuclear deal done by Obama. Ditto for the stupid, non-scientifically based Paris Climate Accord which is really just about a transfer of money to poor countries which can’t get their damn act together all the while giving India and China a pass (N.B., as an example of how the vast majority of pollution can be found coming from non-Western nations, 90% of the plastic entering the oceans of the world come from ten rivers, eight located in Asia and two in Africa).
Trump has also done nothing to ruin the “special relationship” with the UK, a relationship I heartily endorse, but the UK has had fools for Prime Ministers since 1997, a government controlled media which loathes Trump and the Queen has said nothing as her nation has gone from a free polity to an unfree one (and yes, I know what her constitutional role is but when your country is in the process of losing liberty then you MUST put your office on the line which Elizabeth hasn’t).
Trump has also called out NATO members like Germany to start paying its fair share and Trump standing up for America because of unfair trade practices engaged in by countries like Mexico and China does not add up to some kind of rank nationalism, nor does wanting to protect our borders as Trump has tried to do but he has been stalled in this endeavor by not only the Democrats but also by many Republicans e.g., Paul Ryan when Speaker of the House).
Trump has also had the guts to address the deep and fetid swamp which is Washington DC which both parties are guilty of creating as well as the unelected bureaucracy which resides in such federal departments as Justice and State. One last matter, Trump is not abandoning the Kurds just because he is pulling out US troops. We can still supply them with all kind of military hardware and if that bastard Erdogan goes after the Kurds, then Trump has all kinds of diplomatic, economic and military options available to him. For God’s sake, America is sick of being the world’s policeman and it has had to be so because most of the world doesn’t work and this is NOT America’s fault. America was founded for the very reason of getting away from others and, bitterly ironically, over the past century or so it has had to come to the rescue of numerous nations because the world is so effed up. Enough already!
I voted for Trump in 2016 and I will vote for him again in 2020. Right now, I would argue, even with his faults, he is the single greatest and most powerful protector of Western ideals of liberty anywhere on earth. No wonder he is hated so much.
This is enough for now. Your turn if you care.
Stuart DeQuincy says
I do care but I do not think you will like my answer. For a start your drain the swamp argument. TRUMP is the establishment just as much as any of your other candidates, you cannot get to the White House without being. I am pretty much convinced that you are wrong about Trumps intentions towards the Turks (who in my opinion are little more than a fifth column within western circles. Erdogan has realigned with Putin and Russia, they actually have a great deal in common. Especially in the way they turned their fledgling democracies into dictatorships) and the Kurds. I am convinced that Trump has agreed in advance too Erdogan launching a massive attack on the SDF and for all intents and purposes confirmed the betrayal in a phone call to Erdogan the night before the withdrawal began. What is less clear to me is the motivation. Turkey is about as geo-politically strategic a nation as one can be and perhaps Trump seeks simply to pull Erdogan and Turkey back towards the west but in my opinion that bird has flown. Maybe It is a quid pro quo for the continued use of Incirlik. It is a false economy anyway and a political stunt. It is not like there were many US troops there anyway! A few special forces teams and logistical support. If he had pulled out of Afghanistan then that would have produced significant savings and possibly a significant reduction in casualties. Afghanistan is a war we have lost and we are just bleeding to assuage our guilt in having “been seen” to start it all. (I am of the opinion that either of Saudi Arabia or Russia are responsible for creating the dynamic in Afghanistan but that is a story for another post on another day) However the small US forces deployed on the border between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan are no more than a trip wire to prevent exactly what I believe is going to happen over the next couple of days or weeks at most. A small cheap deployment to let Turkey know that they would have to shoot at Americans to get at the Kurds and it worked perfectly, so why the withdrawal unless Trump has sold the Kurds out? As for the economic and trade war that Trump is waging. I am all for the Chinese tariffs, their protectionist economic policies are unfair in the extreme and I genuinely believe that previous administrations only put up with them as there was still a tiny chance that China might come around and return to the country of the 90’s and early millennium where they were playing us for fools and were encouraging us to believe that they were turning from communism and reforming their system. We had some compelling reasons to believe that would be the case. In every other country that adopted capitalism it was quickly followed by improved human rights and democratic reform and the Chinese played the “Mr Nice Guy” role brilliantly until they had built their new industrialised super heated economy with western money and investment and then they threw off the, “Mr Nice Guy” mask and revealed their true colours. Yes, taking China down a notch or two or seven is fine with me but what about Canada, after the UK your closest ally and your neighbour both geographically and culturally? What about us in the UK whom, you sanctioned yesterday? It reveals a pattern that is no different to the other superpowers Russia and China. But America is meant to be different, America is meant to stand for something better. I miss the America of old, yes we made mistakes but we always tried to do the right thing as we saw it. What is worse? Trying to do the right thing and getting it wrong sometimes or never trying in the first place? In short as I was growing up we always seemed like the good guys, I miss that sense of being something better. So should you………..
Infidel says
Okay, I disagree w/ you here on the UK, which has historically provided the basis of the globalist policies, which in turn gave rise to what Kipling called the ‘White Man’s burden’. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, they made it a point to try and configure the world in their image, and after WWII, when they became so weak that they could no longer hold on to their empire, they passed that buck on to the US, which happily took it.
That policy may have made sense during the Cold War, but not post 1991. And certainly not after 9/11. The other thing that I loathe about the UK – most of the woke trends that we see today – from gender fluidity and all those bizarre concepts about gender, race and so on – are born there, and make their way not only in Europe, but across the pond to here! Our own leftists practically worship theirs, and nowadays, the Guardian is treated as a serious news source in the US. I actually liked it when that Montana congressman punched out that pesky Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs – what the blank was the latter doing in Montana, and why are the Brits so interested in what goes on in the US? Didn’t they screw up the world enough?
And given what Christopher Steele did in 2016, it’s high time to recognize that Britain is NOT our ally!
Wellington says
Interesting perspective on British history, Infidel.
Guess you disagree with the view that the British Empire, with all its faults, was still the most decent empire in history (for the record, I’m not into empires but rather nation states, but if you have to have an empire how much better could you do than the British one?).
As for configuring the world in its own image, how are the British any different here from any other people? And is not this “British image” far superior, again with all its faults, to most every other geopolitical and cultural image?
What if all the world “took” to the British image of existence? Wouldn’t we have a much better world—democracy, a sense of fair play, the best economic system ever devised by man, i.e., capitalism, freedom from tyranny, the capacity for self-criticism,, et al.?
I do agree with you that modern Britain, over the past half century, and especially over the past twenty years or so, has engaged in suicidal self-destruction, but I am interested here in the multi-century British existence, one which realized, as an example, that after the American Revolutionary War, it was in the best interest of Britain to treat with America fairly (as occurred especially after the Treaty of Ghent in 1814) and to deal with its still extensive empire as deserving of eventual independence most everywhere (examples being Canada, Australia and New Zealand).
As before, I am quite interested in your perspective on matters since you are an informed and subtle assessor of the world. Your turn, if you care.
Infidel says
Wellington, I’m not into empires either, but even more than that, I’m not a believer that any country needs to blaze the trail of anyone else, ‘lead’ anyone else and so on. It’s not a question of whether the British Empire was a better empire than the French, German, Belgian, Spanish, Portugese or Russian empires. Let’s grant that it was. Also, about your question – how were the Brits different from any other people, you got it the wrong way around: how are they similar to anyone else – be it the Maoris, Aborigines, Canadian eskimoes, South African Boers or Blacks, Native Americans, Indians, native Africans in the Sahara, Kalahari, Masai or Savannas et al? They’re not – nobody is, and everybody should have followed their own paths and destinies.
The problem w/ the conclusion that the British image being superior is that once you accept that premise, what follows is that all the faults would need to be emulated – b’cos one country has undergone the right experience. You yourself conceded that Britain ‘over the past half century, and especially over the past twenty years or so, has engaged in suicidal self-destruction’. Once a country is put on a pedestal, those self-destructive policies are a part of the portfolio that gets sold to others expected to emulate them. (Incidentally, what you put down – ‘democracy, a sense of fair play, the best economic system ever devised by man, i.e., capitalism, freedom from tyranny, the capacity for self-criticism’ – are more American values than British – particularly things like capitalism, freedom from tyranny and a sense of fair play.)
Yeah, we had the British empire, succeeded by the commonwealth, and there are those, like Mark Steyn, who’ve made a convincing argument that members who’ve preserved most of their British institutions, like India, Jamaica, Barbados, Belize, et al have done fine, while those that have dismantled them, such as Zimbabwe, now South Africa, Uganda, Nigeria have fallen by the wayside. But that’s the very thing – unless a country is totally transformed into an alternative Britain, as was the case w/ Canada, Australia and New Zealand, any country is destined to follow whatever its people decide is in their best traditions – British influence or not. And it’s best to let them experiment all that on their own, rather than expecting western powers to maintain foreign legions out there (like the French Foreign Legion) to be a ‘civilizing influence’. Even putting aside the question of whether European values are superior to, say, African values (which they easily are), accepting the premise that a civilizing influence is needed then puts the onus on the civilized countries to expend blood and treasure doing the civilizing. That’s a part of what’s going on right now in North Eastern Syria and Afghanistan, and in the process, people of the ‘civilizing’ countries have to put family members in strange foreign lands indefinitely, sometimes losing them for good.
It’s the 21st century, the 3rd millenium, and everybody on earth knows that it’s round, and who else is there in the world around them: there’s nothing left to discover or explore, unless one is planning an exotic family vacation. With that in mind, there’s no reason for any country to have troops in another unless they are actually at war w/ them. Similarly, if there is a genocide in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Burundi, Congo, Malawi, South Africa, Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, then it’s not the fault of the ‘international community’ or the ‘world community’: it’s on them! It’s time for every country to do their own thing – a macro projection of ‘Libertarianism’ on a national scale.
We’d all be happier that way
gravenimage says
Infidel, whatever you think of democracy and the British Empire, would you *really* prefer that large parts of India were still under brutal Muslim rule?
Wellington says
In agreement with you, gravenimage. And I was addressing Britain historically, not over the last generation or so when it has indeed degenerated. And just because you admire a certain civilization, contra Infidel’s contention, does not mean you must also emulate its faults. One can pick out the best in this regard and leave the rest behind.
Terry Gain says
A few thousand American troops would have deterred Turkey’s attack on the Kurds. It was unethical, heartless and ill-advised to abandon the Kurds to an Islamist tyrant who has a Muhammad complex.
mortimer says
Yes.
elee says
+1
Leroy says
A civil war between muslim cults is their own business. The USA has no right or reason to be involved.
Terry Gain says
It is unwise to abandon an ally and plain stupid to allow Turkey free reign. There will be no world peace until Muslims abandon Islam. Betraying the Kurds is counterproductive.
No Muzzies Here says
Both the American left and the Jihadis want to destroy Western Civilization. That explains their deeply felt mutual love and adoration. Explains why the Pope kissed an Imam on the lips.
European pagan says
There are problems, but islam is not the solution 😉
rooare says
Islam is one of the main problems in the world, it’s certainly not the solution.
Arthur says
it is very human and cilvilised to behead innocent people, force them to change religion or dig own graves, refuse human rights under sharia law
elee says
After due reflection: I am a proud western chauvinist and I will not apologise for creating the modern world. Next time his grandchildren get sick he can tell them inshallah they might live.
somehistory says
From today’s news articles:
A family from Britain went to Turkey…why, why, oh why….last month for vacation. They took along their little daughter, not quite three years old. When they returned to the U.K., she was later hospitalized, and her family took her off life support and she died this month.
Here’s the deal: The “resort” where the family stayed…for ten long days.. served food that was left uncovered, and lukewarm. Evidently the adults in the family ate it and allowed their little girl to do so. They all began to have stomach cramps and to feel unwell. They spoke to other guests who had the same problems. They did not leave…but stayed for ten days.
The guests, including this British family, saw human excrement in the swimming pool. When the hotel staff was alerted to this, they scooped it out, but did not clean the pool or re-fill it. This was not a one-time thing during the ten long days.
The Brits also said there was human excrement in the children’s bathroom. They stayed for ten long days.
When they arrived back in the U.K., their little girl became ill with diarrhea and wouldn’t eat. The family did not seek medical attention early enough and when they finally did, it was too late for this baby girl. She died of e-coli when it reached her brain.
The family, in my opinion, used the poorest of judgment in going to turkey. Even worse, when they saw the conditions at the ‘resort”…they did not leave immediately, but stayed for ten long days. And they allowed their baby to be sick for way too long before seeking help for her. Do the adults in that family recognize the dangers in islam? Probably not, or they would have vacationed some place else.
But, the moslims at the “resort’ allowed filth and unsanitary conditions to prevail. This is par for the course in moslim countries and they want to take their filthy practices to the rest of the world. Now what practices would quickly “destroy the world”….clean or filthy?
Angemon says
<blockquoteHe said that the West was “a civilization not of peace, but of war”
Well, we did kick back the Turks on numerous occasions. And islam does consider us part of dar-al-harb – “the house of war”…
Infidel says
If one looks at the history of genocides by government/regime, you have first the Chicoms, then the Soviets under Stalin, then Hitler, then everyone else.
But if one groups it up by race, the Turkic people win the awards – combine what the Turks did under Tamerlane, the various Turkic conquerors like Mahmoud of Ghazni did in both Central Asia and India, where they wiped out Buddhism in Afghanistan and India, the various Muslim sultans of India as well as the Mughals – and then the Ottomans in Armenia and the Tatars in Russia – and one could get a number probably near 300 million.
Against that backdrop, the comment of Mehmed Şevket Eygi is pretty rich
Battle says
Hugh Fitzgerald hits nail on head. Good.
Battle says
God bless Western Civilization.
God bless the USA.
God bless Israel.
tim gallagher says
Whatever the flaws that western civilisation may have, our values and the way of life that western civilisation has created gives most people a pretty decent and pleasant way of enjoying life, whereas Islam completely destroys any chance of people enjoying a pleasant life, where they are free to express their humanity, whether through the arts or romantic love, or whatever. I guess this imbecile would want to impose totally repressive Sharia law on everyone, which gives people virtually none of the freedoms to be able to live a rich human life. Islam is the most destructive of all ideologies and has been a curse on humanity for the 1400 years of misery it has imposed on so many people. This columnist is a lying propagandist, although I suppose he knows that he will be well rewarded for spouting such pro-Islam drivel. Islam is a thousand times more destructive of human happiness than our western civilisation could ever be. Islam brings nothing but misery.
elee says
He isnt necessarily an imbecile. He might just be a pressman who wants to keep his job and his liberty in Erdogans Turkey.
tim gallagher says
You’re right, elee. After all, as you say, he’d probably be rotting away in prison or dead if he didn’t write the type of garbage that is mentioned in this report. I guess I got a little too angry and couldn’t resist insulting the propagandist, probably because I do believe so strongly that Islam has brought so much misery to the human race. I find it hard to put up with people who defend this very obviously barbaric ideology, Islam.
gravenimage says
Turkish Columnist: We Must Stop Western Civilization From Destroying the World
…………………
This is how this pious Muslim characterizes our dismantling the Islamic State.
SAFI says
Somrtimes it’s hard to distinguish the retoric of far-left Maoists and conservative islamic supremacists… At least when it comes to their favorite passtime of blasting the “evil” West.
Giacomo Latta says
So, Eygi, why is your country voluntarily still a member of NATO? I think you know the answer to that one already.
gravenimage says
The West is the freest, most civilized culture in history. Of course Muslims hate it.
Wellington says
+1