Home

Clash of Cultures

Comment by Larry Ross, September 5, 2006

It is essential to the fulfillment of the Bush Neo-con plan, and the benefit of his many cronies in the U.S. military-industrial complex and oil industry, that they create a credible enemy that can be goaded into resistance and acts of terrorism against U.S. and U.K. neo-Imperialism.

All acts of resistance to U.S. or Israeli illegal wars and occupations in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine or any other country, especially those with oil resources that Bush Neo-cons covet, must be portrayed to the public as acts of terrorism probably committed by Muslim fanatics, suicide bombers and Islamic fascists. In creating his enemies, Bush warns Americans "you are either with us or with the terrorists".

That kind of warning help polarise the nation, create fear and silences most criticism. It also keep the media in line and non-critical, and provides the justification for making wars on whoever Bush Neo-cons choose. 

Major wars, like those on Iraq and Iran to come, must appear to have real credible reasons in order to get popular support.

The 9/11 attacks got popular support for the war on Iraq , as well as opening the U.S. Treasury for unlimited war plundering.

Bush and Blair are losing that support, as the lies they told to justify the war have filtered through to the majority of the population.

Today, more than 50% of Americans disapprove of Bush's Iraq war and believe U.S. troops should be brought home.

One of Bush's answers to this problem is his invention of the term "Islamic-fascism" as a catch-all for all the Muslim opponents he makes. The Neo-con strategy is to create an irrational fear of Muslims and dark-skinned people who look like they might be Muslim. 

This strategy worked for Hitler who demonized and murdered the Jews and silenced any critics. Except for the more blatant fascist type of controls which Hitler used and implemented, the Neo-con demonizing strategy of Muslims is working very well for them in the U.S. and Britain .

The fact that U.S. and UK public support is falling as the lies are revealed, suggests to the Neo-cons that more draconian allegedly 'terrorist' incidents and new fascist-type of controls on public dissent may soon be necessary to fool the public and Congress again. A credible incident would boost public support, help maintain Bush and Blair in office and prepare the way for like-minded cronies of the two to take over when Bush and Blair leave office.

The big question is: Can the U.S. and UK publics be fooled again as they were for the Iraq war, into supporting more and larger wars?

There must be a big upsurge and dedication by the informed minority to educate the people about Bush Neo-con realities and plots, and what the Neo-cons may next do to get their support. If there is not, the Bush Neo-cons will be able to dominate the U.S.-UK publics as Hitler's Nazis dominated and lied to the German people in order to make war.

The following article gives more details of the Bush Neo-con techniques used.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Clash of Civilizations Doesn't Exist... Yet

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet, September 1, 2006

"Seriousness" has become the word of the day for the Islamophobic set.

According to some of our more serious hawks, anyone who doesn't buy that the liberal democracies of the West are engaged in a death-match with hordes of dusky Muslim fanatics is "unserious" about America's security and can't be trusted.

It's the latest in a series of attempts to forestall any meaningful discussion of the causes of violent Islamist ideologies, much less how the United States should respond to them. It locks us into the global "war on terror."

Unfortunately, all too many otherwise sane people seem to accept the terms.

But it's hard to imagine anything more profoundly unserious than taking a dozen complex conflicts that originated in a dozen countries, stripping them of all historical and political context and lumping them together in an amorphous blob called the "Clash of Civilizations." But that's exactly what we're talking about.

So let's take them at their word for a moment and think seriously about the framework they use to understand a dangerous and confusing world.

Consider this: in the epic struggle between East and West, some of our staunchest allies are the undisputed champs in spreading violent Islamic extremism. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan established fundamentalist, anti-Western madrassas all across the world, funneled gobs of cash to extremist groups, and nurtured and supported them in their infancy. It wasn't just random individuals within those countries; Saudi Arabia made it a foreign policy priority to spread its brand of Wahhabism, mostly to counter the perceived threat of Pan-Arabism and other anti-colonial ideologies. Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI -- sometimes called a "state within a state" -- not only supported the Taliban in Afghanistan but funded, equipped and helped train some of the most notorious terror groups that grew out of that country in the 1990s. Talk all you want about Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah, these are the great terror-sponsoring states, and they're on the side of the Western democracies.

Continue...