The third world war – La 3e guerre mondiale

Abonnez-vous à notre site

 

The third world war – La 3e guerre mondiale est officiellement reconnue par François Hollande après la tuerie du 13 novembre 2015. C’est un acte de guerre, dit-il.

Il s’agit d’un triangle infernal comprenant un agresseur-persécuteur, un sauveur, une victime.   Dans quel camp, placerez-vous le Hezbollah, la Syrie, l’Iran et la Russie.

Qui est l’agresseur-persécuteur, selon vous?

Dans quel camp placerez-vous, la France, les États-Unis, La Grande Bretagne, L’Arabie Saoudite?

L’arabie Saoudite fournit-il des armes à DAESH? Dans ce cas est- il un sauveur, un protecteur ou un agresseur?  J’avoue que j’ai de la difficulté à bien cerner cet acteur de la 3e guerre mondiale. Est-il simplement un vassale des sauveurs ?ou des agresseurs?  Est-il une victime? À vous de me le dire. J’attends votre réponse et je me ferai un plaisir de le partager sur ce site avec votre permission.

Quand mensuel communautaire LE MONDE a reçu la nouvelle du Cabinet du maire, je me suis rendu sur Facebook pour m’informer. Voici ce que j’ai trouvé.

AJ+

At least 80 people were killed in Bataclan concert hall in Paris. It was one of the country’s worst terror attacks, leaving more than 100 people dead and over 100 injured.

This is what Busher, a Syrian refugee traveling through Serbia, had to say about last night’s ‪#‎ParisAttacks‬: «It is not Islam, not our Islam.»

«In the name of what?» Reuters/Pascal Rossignol

 

WRITTEN BY

Haroon Moghul Senior Correspondent, Religion Dispatches

4 hours ago

Even before the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks in Paris, I knew what they would say. They would claim that France is a “crusader nation”; that France’s Muslims are oppressed; that France participates in operations against ISIL and has deep historical ties to the Muslim world.

In the days and weeks to come, I am sure analysts will invoke France’smarginalized Muslim population, many of whom hail from countries that France long occupied. They might point to an aggressive secular culture, which singles out the practice of Islam. They could draw on the stigmatization of hijab, the ban on niqab, the elimination of halal food options in some public schools, the abandonment of the banlieus, the mocking tone of a condescending mainstream culture, and the exclusion of Muslims from political life.

These issues are worth paying attention to. To be abundantly clear, these neither explain nor justify the attacks. But they help explain why France is so repeatedly targeted.

Russia has accused Turkey of facilitating the Islamic State’s rise by purchasing oil stolen and produced by the jihadist group in Syria.

«We established a long time ago that large quantities of oil and oil products from territory captured by the Islamic State have been arriving on Turkish territory,» Putin said on Wednesday from theRussian Black Sea resort of Sochi, before a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah.

Western officials have long harbored suspicions about Turkey’s links to the Islamic State. One official told The Guardian’s Martin Chulov in July that a US-led raid on the compound housing ISIS’ «chief financial officer» produced «undeniable» evidence that Turkish officials directly dealt with ranking ISIS members, mainly by purchasing oil from them.

Dear Islamophobes: Your Racism Is Putting Us All In Danger

There’s one thing everybody can do to make the country safer.

  • Ryan GrimWashington Bureau Chief, The Huffington Post
12/07/2015 12:36 am ET | Updated 6 hours ago

Credit: ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Former President George W. Bush was a lot of things, but one thing he wasn’t was soft. He responded to the attack on 9/11 by invading not one but two countries, authorized the use of torture and indefinite detention and launched a mass surveillance program. When the occupation of Iraq turned against the U.S., he surged more troops at it.

Bush did all of this, he felt, to keep the country safe. (He was wrong, of course; his decisions essentially created the self-described Islamic State.) But there was one more thing he did, not because he was soft or in the grips of political correctness, but because he knew it would make the country safer: He embraced Muslims and regularly referred to Islam as a «religion of peace.»Whatever horrors befell Muslims overseas on Bush’s orders, here at home, he worked to be as inclusive of the Muslim community as possible.

Surprising as it may seem today, that effort mostly worked. Anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim political parties in Europe have stirred up a tremendous amount of Islamophobia there, and such attitudes naturally drive feelings of anger and betrayal. For a young man or woman on the edge, it can be just enough to push them into radicalization, and it’s not a coincidence that Europe has seen far more homegrown attacks. Yet we here in the U.S. seem to be barreling headlong for that same cliff.

For members of the national security community, Bush’s approach is 101-level strategy, which accounts for its longstanding bipartisan support. It’s why Bush refused to say «radical Islamic terror» and why President Barack Obama followed his lead. But with the rise of the ultra-conservative wing of the GOP, and the surge of presidential contenders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, all of whom have demonized Muslims in one way or another, it is nearly a requirement for a GOP candidate to dog whistle, or worse, against Muslims. And voters have rewarded them: Trump, Carson and Cruz are now vying for the lead.

In his Oval Office address on Sunday night, Obama took aim at Islamophobia.

«We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam,» he said.

On Dec. 2, an American citizen of Pakistani descent and his wife, a Pakistani-born legal resident, had become radicalized enough to launch an attack in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people.

It is not easy, but it is doable for global spy agencies to track the movements of known or suspected militants. It is impossible to track the mind. If someone already in the United States goes through a personal evolution and decides to lash out violently, there is very little authorities can do to prevent it — especially when Congress has shown no ability to control the flow of weapons of war within the United States. Instead of focusing on Syrian refugees literally fleeing from ISIS, the goal instead should be to stop people already here from joining them in spirit.

In his address, Obama also argued that anti-Muslim bigotry plays right into the hands of ISIS.

«If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate,» Obama said.

When politicians push to block Syrian refugees from coming to the United States — or, more grotesquely, as Cruz did, suggest only the Christian refugees be welcomed — they are pretending to be advancing the national security interests of the U.S. But the Muslim-Americans already here, and others on the path to conversion, see this bigotry and scapegoating. Some chalk it up to political expediency and do their best to ignore it; others see it as an affront to their human dignity and resent it; a few become furious; fewer still combine that fury with some mental instability or vulnerability. And from there, it’s not hard to get an assault rifle.

The challenge for the U.S., which Obama attempted to address in his speech on Sunday, will be how to put the racist genie back in the bottle. Now that politicians sense an opening by exploiting Islamophobia, the less scrupulous ones will drive right through it.

GOP leaders, if such a thing exists, seem incapable of stopping it. Only voters can stop it. If voters decide that bashing Muslims only makes the country less safe in the long run, and reject candidates who stir up fear, fewer candidates will try it in the future. That’s how politicians work. And without politicians amplifying the racism, it can dissipate on the ground, as it did when Bush tamped it down.

But the politics have turned so sharply since then that even Obama felt the need to say a few lines about the Muslim community’s responsibility to reel in radicalism. It’s a trope that many find offensive, as Christians are rarely asked to condemn violence by Christians, or white men to condemn an attack carried out by a white man.

We cannot deny «the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities,» Obama said. «It’s a real problem that Muslims must confront without excuse. But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans, of every faith, to reject discrimination.»

 



This post has been seen 892 times.
Categories:
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial