In texts I have written many times that I consult my views and opinions not only in conferences or seminaries, with people in work or trough interviews. I have very honest friends in the Middle East – like Mohamed Abu Omar, with whom I spoke just after Charlie Hebdo tragedy and now after Paris massacre. What is obvious to me thanks to friends like him, but doesn’t have to be so obvious to majority of the people in the West, usually we have very similar point of view. The text which provoked the following conversation is this: As the #MyPointofView after Paris massacre I say: no WAR but goodPOLICY at last!!
Our conversation started from the comment of Mohamed to the article
Mohamed Abu Omar: well , war or not ? … we are in War, against whom? … against Terrorism and Whoever support it but as You said.
Maciej Milczanowski: Your questions are the same I’ve asked in my text 😉 Although I didn’t wrote about states which support terrorism. Now I say, we are pretty sure these are: Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia – for the Sunni groups as IS or AQ. From the other side Iran – for the Shia Militias in Iraq, and for the Hezbollah and Hamas – which is Sunni but still supported by Iran. At the last but not least Yemeni Shia are also supported by Iran to win the permanent Iranian control over territory there. What is Your opinion about it?
MO: unfortunately Putin is right saying that some countries of the G20 are among the 40 countries supporting / funding ISIS – as KSA, Turkey, but also UK and USA etc… believe me it’s the ugly truth. We keep suffering of the UK, USA tolerating and supporting Muslims Brotherhood in Egypt. A liberal guy like me and others can’t get a visa to the West … while the bearded guys can !!!
MM: Yes I agree. Putin is right in more points (which I am not happy about) – like from the very beginning of the Syrian war he said that the task of the West, China and Russia (all together) is to bring FSA and Assad to the negotiations and and direct the struggle against A-Nusrah. Negotiations were meant to project the way of Syrian government to be not representatives of just one group there or/and to step down, but in accordance with the process – not a sudden change. But West didn’t want even to consider such plan and as the first point they raised: „Assad must go!” call. Of course Putin doesn’t propose that because he is so democratical, just in this case his aims coincidently were right. As for the West, all politicians are connected somehow and depend one from another. Thus we can always say they are supporting or responsible for supporting or overthrowing dictatorships or terrorists. I also believe that searching for the „democracy” in Iraq and Syria was just a cover to fight for the control of the territories, the same as Putin sending his troops and mercenaries to Ukraine wants to regain the control over it. Also France, GB and USA generally support MB or even branches of AQ and IS when it is in „their interest” – if that can be named so. That is what I wanted to express in my article – the main mistake! Such policy directed only on the shorthanded goals without understanding of the consequences and thus without real International Security Strategy produces wrong consequences.
MO: New Policy has to be created, but not that policy of the same old question: „How to Treat Muslim World?” It’s actually very simple: stop trying to interfere under any name, let Muslims solve their internal issues, stop re-organize the Middle East states. Our borders right now which Anglo-French drawn it 100 years ago are WRONG as they never respect or understand the different trips/ethnics and they designed countries in strange way. But to re-design it again, actually, it’s another mistake any country has a civil war, or dissolved, will be a warm environment for terror fighting against dictatorships can’t be done by destroying countries it selves. Just west has to remember one last point: Muslims are not looking for occupying others lands … except these terrorists , they are believing in Imperialism and controlling others homelands i mean , Egyptians , Tunisians , Syrians , Iraqis … etc by nature they are not looking to spread or extend their lands or whatever … as a normal muslims citizens , but terrorists and any Islamist System like ISIS or Iran, it is all the same, they are dreaming of imperialism and all these blablabla…
MM: Naming who struggles for „imperialism” You mentioned just Iran and IS. Don’t You think that Gulf countries like KSA, Qatar and Kuwait using Sunnis and IS & AQ as well are fighting against Iranian-Shia influences? I believe that this fight for influences and resources is not led just by the West and terrorists but the mentioned countries plus Turkey are cooperating with the West mostly to use them to control as much as they can in the Middle East. That is right that Egypt, Tunisia, Syria are not the part of that competition now, but mabe only because they are in the special political situation now? That is why I divide the politicians which usually believe that their main task – the so called National Interest is to secure the control over others, while people prefer to have a more partner relations with others. Of course it is generalization but I believe it is more or less true. And that would give a good chance for the people like us to talk openly and honestly about the subjects which politicians could never agree. In that case Muslims as You said (also from Iran and territories controlled by so called IS) are those who doesn’t want any imperial aims at the prize of war. When it comes to politicians, there are different types, but many of them – especially in the countries who have potential – they are much more eager to use their people, to trigger the conflicts aiming in the „National Interest” which in fact is their party of group interest.
MO: So, West has to stop asking the same question: „how to deal with Muslims”. Muslims are not the problem , or Islam … it’s Islamists who use their Islam as a cover for their dreams, same as Jews vs Zionists, Christians vs Crusaders.
MM: Exactly, we always have, in all cultures, moderate people who want to live and develop and the extremists who want to control, doesn’t trust anyone, are aggressive toward „others”. Would Yuo call those Islamists the same way I named them in my article: islamo-fascists?
MO: Yes. It’s is crucial to differentiate between Muslims & Islamists. Muslims believe in Allah as the God, Islam as the way to him, Islamists believe in Islam and Machiavelli way (anything to get what you want) as their way it’s like , someone who was looking for Money to Buy a House … forgot his Aim/End and became a slave to Money. So it is basic to filter your immigration and refugees from Islamic world, but how West is doing that, became everybody joke in local simple Kahwa (Coffee Shop). „Beards” get Schengen and USA visa, while normal liberals no. It’s everybody’s opinion – in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc., all simple people say that.
And please, stop using freedom of media for Al-Jazeera while preventing the other 200 channels from broadcast to EU/USA! It’s brainwash the youth Muslims inside EU/USA. Notice that too: all who did Paris attacks are born in EU except 1 or 2! and among them 4 pure French by DNA! The danger isn’t coming from abroad EU as much as it’s already inside EU so, bombing Syria and Libya by French supporting Russians, is just for Media and absorb people in France anger , nothing more. Believe it or not: Russia/Germany and even Poland has much more security against Islamists than UK/USA/France just by stepping a step behind. Your article is totally good i my opinion.
MM: Thanks Mohamed for great talk. I always count on Your opinions and I am happy to have You as a friend.