Why is the Arab conquest not as shouted about as the European ones?
At the same time, Sudan is a year and a half into a bewilderingly savage war. Even in the occupied West Bank, almost every single Palestinian I met asked me about Sudan, their sense of the war there sharpened by their own experience. “It’s such a shame,” one man told me, “[and] so unnecessary. It’s always our leaders who want to fight, never the people.” Wherever it is, it feels like one war, the causes of which are complex, but the consequences for those experiencing it are simple. We are all in familiar trouble.
Zoom out further and the scene across the Arab world looks historically bleak. Fires big and small are burning everywhere. Many countries – Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Syria – are either divided by low-grade rumbling conflicts (Syria is once again escalating), or struggling through humanitarian crises.
Odd, isn’t it?
Surely all these problems of the Arab world are the fault of European and American colonialism, though? It’s not really possible that these people would have mucked things up for themselves. Or if it is, I haven’t properly understood any of Nesrine’s other articles.
Why is the Arab conquest not as shouted about as the European ones?
Because we’re rich enough to support a parasitic class that not only hates us it has told other societies they aren’t responsible for their own misery its all the fault of the west.
Nasrine is probably wetting herself in anticipation of the latest Al Queda offshoot over-running Syria.
the scene across the Arab world looks historically bleak.
Shah bad, mullahs worse.
Gaddafi bad, what followed worse
Saddam bad (very bad TBH) but still what followed was worse.
Assad bad (think Saddam) but does anyone with a single brain cell think what replaces him will be better??
Good grief. Even the bbc’s Jeremy Bowen has one eye open about this:-
It is too soon to write the Assad regime off. It has a core of genuine support. Some Syrians see it as the least bad option – better than the jihadists who came to dominate the rebellion.
almost every single Palestinian I met asked me about Sudan
She must meet a very exclusive class of Palestinian. I sincerely doubt if most Palestinians could point to Palestine on a map.
A secular dictator is always better than an Islamist headchopper. Syria has a reasonable number of Christians who are done for if the Islamists win so I sincerely hope they don’t.
@ BiS
The class of Palesrinians she meets are *very* exclusive: the ones who belong to or hang around the clique of lefty London journalists
almost every single Palestinian [ESP] I met asked me about Sudan
Dialogue like this:
ESP: You’re not from round here – where are you from?
NesQ: UK
ESP: You know what I mean, where are you from?
NesQ: Sudan
ESP: Bad luck – what a mess that place is in.
ISIS 2.0 is a Western creation. Turkey, the US and Israel are backing them.
(This is why these “Islamic terrorists” spend all their time terrorising Muslims, Christians and Druze, instead of fighting the US or Israel).
Saint Ephrem, pray for Syria and President el-Assad.
Easy enough question to answer. When there are no Jews to demonise, no one gives a shit.
The wise dictum of CS Lewis about religious tyrannies: “those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience” applies.
Civilian casualties in Yemen dwarf the number of Hamas’ human shields killed in Gaza. However, if you can’t blame the Jews then they don’t count.
It’s the wrong sort of Imperialism to get ‘Western Anti-Imperialists’ interested, and Muslims are generally indifferent to Muslim on Muslim conflict as it’s been the default since the earliest Caliphs. If they want people to pay attention they need to try and shoehorn in some Jews, or failing that some Americans. Maybe the Mormons can send some missionaries and then everyone can have a march through Central London to protest?