Joe Angione, writing for The Villages, FL Daily Sun, wrote a very interesting article on the Muslimization of Europe. He refers to Geert Wilders‘ contention that in about a generation America will be the only nation standing against the onslaught of radical Islam. Joe further states 45 million Muslims now live in Europe, 25 percent of the European population. He presents a very persuasive argument regarding the dangers we may face in the future including nuclear war.My fear is different; my fear is the Muslimization of Europe will lead us into another major war on the European continent. If we examine Muslim nations, removing their oil export monies, we find that Islamic, theocratic governments cannot raise their people’s standard of living beyond that of the middle ages. They cannot succeed in international commerce. They cannot function economically in an industrialized society to say nothing of succeeding in our electronic age. I cannot believe that any nation of Europe would become a Muslim theocracy regardless of the size of their Muslim population.
Today, the Muslims in Europe are an annoyance rather than an immediate threat to the native Europeans. They populate their own ghettos and it’s easy to turn a blind eye to their migration into Europe. However at some point, they are going to cease being an annoyance and become a threat. The first threat will be economical, as the Muslim population increases the people of Europe will tire of supporting an ever increasing population of who are not contributing to the national welfare but, rather, are a burden.
The second threat will be social, when the Europeans tire of the economic burden they will be faced with a population that they don’t know what to do with. They can’t send them home nor can they force them to assimilate. So what will happen? We can’t know because we have never before faced a similar problem. Each nation will react differently depending on the size of their Muslim population and political persuasion. Certainly there will be discord and rioting. More seriously we may find nation pitted against nation and wars may start.
If that happens, do you think we can keep our finger out of that pie? I don’t, we’ll chose sides and become embroiled in another war on the European continent.
We Americans, or at least our government, are not ready to admit that we should allow the other nations of the world to solve their own problems. We are not ready to admit that while other nations have problems, so do we - problems we need to solve without embroiling ourselves on foreign soil. We will find justification no matter how tenuous to interfere. This is a greater risk than the risk of an Islamic, theocratic Europe.
JohnS
4 comments:
Radical Islam is indeed becoming a greater threat largely because of Bush’s ignorant military response that played perfectly into bin Laden’s publicly stated strategy to bankrupt America by drawing us into endless wars in the Middle East. He knew that nothing would recruit terrorist better than a "Christian" military invasion. See for example the Wikipedia article Anatomy of Terrorism
I have trouble believing that 45 million people will ever think alike. Muslims in the Middle East are not united in any effective way. Muslims around the world vary in their practice and very few are extremists.
Religious beliefs of all kinds can contribute to an internal moral compass that can be a force for good. And if people are motivated internally to do right by their neighbor we may need fewer external controls on negative behaviors.
Here is my delayed reply to Howard's comment and link to the Daily Kos "Anatomy of Terrorism" scholarly-sounding tripe he thought was a genuine Wikipedia article.
Of course it is made to look exactly like a Wikipedia article because Wikipedia has volunteeers who do a good job of keeping articles on major issues fair and truthful. Not so the leftist loons at Daily Kos.
The first World Trade Center Bombing and the USS Cole attack took place during the Clinton administration and were treated as criminal matters, with no real military response. The 9/11 attack took place in the eight month of the Bush administration but was planned and manned by bin Laden during Clinton's term. So much for the argument that non-military responses are best because the alternative, a military response, plays into bin Laden's strategy.
Please re-read the Daily Kos sophistry, knowing it is not a real Wikipedia article, and see if your opinion changes.
This is not to say I think the Bush administration handled the Iraq War properly. Knowing what we know now, Rumsfeld should have listened to Gen. Shinseki and sent at least twice as many troops for a proper occupation. Instead, Rumsfeld's nuanced strategy was a "light footprint" and encouraging "democracy" that he hoped would not look like an occupation. We all know that did not work and the war dragged on way too long.
Something like democracy (at least Chicago-style :^) is flickering in Iraq now. The oil supply, the real reason for "Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)", is relatively secure. Would a non-military response have been better? Would bin Laden be any weaker now if Daily Kos had been in charge? Would the world be safer if Saddam was still in charge in Iraq? I doubt it.
Oh, you might say, had we not gone into Iraq we could have put more troops in Afghanistan and got bin Laden. Perhaps, but how much OIL is there in Afghanistan?
Ira Glickstein
Sorry for delaying my reply to Steve. I agree that the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists and that "Religious beliefs of all kinds can contribute to an internal moral compass that can be a force for good."
However, in any religion, a small percentage of extremists who are convinced God is on their side and has Ordered them to convert or kill all non-believers can cow the majority into standing aside or even supporting some terrible excesses. History is full of examples of successful religious crusades and jihads.
Ira Glickstein
Post a Comment