<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Sep 12 2009, 08:54 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Sep 12 2009, 08:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If British were so shrewd, cunning and articulate about 47, what explains the fact that they too fell a victim themselves of Islamism? If they were so smart to be able to manipulate Islam and affect the havoc of an artificial (i.e. manipulated) Partition on India, where was all their smartness gone when they allowed Pakis to freely settle in Londonistan? This alone might be proof enogh that our British enemy too was not altogether right in his judgement of the strength of Islam.[right][snapback]101243[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(No comment on Elst matters.)
1. Christianism often shoots itself in the foot with islamism. Vatican sponsors christian help in islamism in ME (against Israel). Western christianism - not just American but also some European centres - sponsored islamism in Yugoslavia. Yet Yugoslavia is the islamic backdoor into Europe, and also Yugoslavia's Albanian islamoterrorists have tried to orchestrate attacks in America (news sometime back). In the overall picture as well: Greeks and Russians (Orthodox christians) find that islamism was used - some believe it was designed - by western christianism to use as a weapon against Orthodoxy. The data they give on their forum for Roman Christianist use of islamism against earlier Eastern Orthodoxy is hard to gainsay. Down to continued islamic Turkish occupation of Greek land Anatolia: Greece was promised liberation of the land from Turks after the war, but were betrayed by the "allies". IIRC Manhattan shows that even this was not outside of Vatican's guided "wishes".
Christianism sponsors islamism in India - like in Kerala. Knowing full-well what a powder keg it is. And now there are christomaniacs dying from islamania as well.
East Timor.
Taliban.
There are other examples, but I forget.
Christianism always sees islamism as a temporary ally. It is willing to sell the future - since the future can be made negotiable with crusades - for gains in the present against heathenism. Western christianism will use islamism against orthodoxy. The heathens and heretics must be put down by the secular arm of external "brute forces out of our control". Islamism can be crusaded later.
Part of this laxity that western christianism has towards islamism - like it's some rogue agent semi under their control, or whose self-detonate button they know of - does bring up all kinds of questions to one's mind.
Else why their repeated mistakes vis-a-vis islamism when you think they would know better?
2. "where was all their smartness gone when they allowed Pakis to freely settle in Londonistan"
a. Britain is a shattered ex-empire, but it still has a sting and the ability to revive itself out of vindictiveness - if only for a shortlived purpose of creating further trainwreck.
b. Londoniston is a direct consequence of several factors. Including Europe's Pendulum action: swinging from left (ultra-liberalism "pluralism") to right (fascism). Also, to be seen as objective vis-a-vis islamic "issues" (terrorisms, militancy, separatism) in the world, they must harbour some islamics of their own to which they can point to for argument.
None of the above is to say that islamism did not want Partition or did not move towards it or could not come up with it on its own, in time. Islamism's jihad against Dharmic/Natural Traditions is innate, and its Dar-ul-harb/Dar-ul-islam dichotomy (plus drive to Dar-ul-islamise) is islamic tenet too.
But that there is a significant British element to the timing, the success and arrangement of forces (the converging of national islamic sentiment at the same time and for the same sharp purpose) in Partition is true as well.
The British vampire - I mean empire - acted as conscious catalyst and enabler, not merely a well-wisher.
Christianism in India and without continues to aid islamism in the Indian subcontinent in this manner: creating *better* opportunities (more chance of success) against the Hindu body. Islamism is very willing to hurl itself, christianism just plans for optimising factors so that it will count.
1. Christianism often shoots itself in the foot with islamism. Vatican sponsors christian help in islamism in ME (against Israel). Western christianism - not just American but also some European centres - sponsored islamism in Yugoslavia. Yet Yugoslavia is the islamic backdoor into Europe, and also Yugoslavia's Albanian islamoterrorists have tried to orchestrate attacks in America (news sometime back). In the overall picture as well: Greeks and Russians (Orthodox christians) find that islamism was used - some believe it was designed - by western christianism to use as a weapon against Orthodoxy. The data they give on their forum for Roman Christianist use of islamism against earlier Eastern Orthodoxy is hard to gainsay. Down to continued islamic Turkish occupation of Greek land Anatolia: Greece was promised liberation of the land from Turks after the war, but were betrayed by the "allies". IIRC Manhattan shows that even this was not outside of Vatican's guided "wishes".
Christianism sponsors islamism in India - like in Kerala. Knowing full-well what a powder keg it is. And now there are christomaniacs dying from islamania as well.
East Timor.
Taliban.
There are other examples, but I forget.
Christianism always sees islamism as a temporary ally. It is willing to sell the future - since the future can be made negotiable with crusades - for gains in the present against heathenism. Western christianism will use islamism against orthodoxy. The heathens and heretics must be put down by the secular arm of external "brute forces out of our control". Islamism can be crusaded later.
Part of this laxity that western christianism has towards islamism - like it's some rogue agent semi under their control, or whose self-detonate button they know of - does bring up all kinds of questions to one's mind.
Else why their repeated mistakes vis-a-vis islamism when you think they would know better?
2. "where was all their smartness gone when they allowed Pakis to freely settle in Londonistan"
a. Britain is a shattered ex-empire, but it still has a sting and the ability to revive itself out of vindictiveness - if only for a shortlived purpose of creating further trainwreck.
b. Londoniston is a direct consequence of several factors. Including Europe's Pendulum action: swinging from left (ultra-liberalism "pluralism") to right (fascism). Also, to be seen as objective vis-a-vis islamic "issues" (terrorisms, militancy, separatism) in the world, they must harbour some islamics of their own to which they can point to for argument.
None of the above is to say that islamism did not want Partition or did not move towards it or could not come up with it on its own, in time. Islamism's jihad against Dharmic/Natural Traditions is innate, and its Dar-ul-harb/Dar-ul-islam dichotomy (plus drive to Dar-ul-islamise) is islamic tenet too.
But that there is a significant British element to the timing, the success and arrangement of forces (the converging of national islamic sentiment at the same time and for the same sharp purpose) in Partition is true as well.
The British vampire - I mean empire - acted as conscious catalyst and enabler, not merely a well-wisher.
Christianism in India and without continues to aid islamism in the Indian subcontinent in this manner: creating *better* opportunities (more chance of success) against the Hindu body. Islamism is very willing to hurl itself, christianism just plans for optimising factors so that it will count.