Era Proxy War, Terorisme Dipakai Untuk Hancurkan Islam Secara Sistematis
NBC Indonesia 1/17/2016

NBCIndonesia.com - Terorisme adalah isu yang dipakai oleh negara-negara kapitalis di era proxy war untuk tujuan menghancurkan Islam secara sistematis.

Demikian dikatakan politisi senior, Rachmawati Soekarnoputri, Sabtu (16/1). Penghancuran Islam secara sistematis ini demi memperkuat hegemoni negara-negara kapitalis atas sumber daya alam Indonesia, seperti dikatakan Bung Karno, exploitation de l‘homme par l‘homme, exploitation de nation par nation.


Rachmawati mengingatkan bahwa sejak 2007 lampau, Badan Intelijen Negara (BIN) menyebut selain kelompok Al Qaeda, ada sedikitnya 40 aliran yang dikategorikan sesat. Dari yang menolak Pancasila yang dianggap "thogut", sampai yang yakin adanya Nabi terakhir setelah Muhammad SAW, sampai yang mengklaim jihad fisabililah jika ingin cepat masuk surga maupun kelompok-kelompok derivatif yang ingin mendirikan Negara Islam Indonesia.

"MUI sudah mengeluarkan fatwa bahwa semua itu tidak ada hubungannya dengan Islam, Islam tidak mengajarkan terorisme," tegas Rachmawati.

Ia menyimpulkan, terorisme tidak terlepas dari faktor kepentingan global dalam rangka mempermudah invasi atau penetrasi kehendaknya pada suatu negara.

"Dalam proxy war ini mereka (negara kapitalis) sedang mencari bentuk musuh bersama yaitu terorisme dengan tujuan menghancurkan Islam secara sistematis," terangnya.
http://www.nbcindonesia.com/2016/01/...kai-untuk.html


ISIS Wants You to Hate Muslims
It’s convinced that Islamophobia—and deeper Western intervention in the Syrian war—will help it attract recruits.
By the EditorsNOVEMBER 19, 2015


ISIS fighters in Syria take part in a military parade along the streets of northern Raqqa. (Reuters / Stringer)

Fourteen years ago, immediately after the Al Qaeda terror attacks in the United States on September 11, the French daily Le Monde published a headline that perfectly expressed the sentiments of grief, shock, and solidarity that so many around the world felt at the time: Nous sommes tous Américains
 (We are all Americans). In the wake of the Islamic State’s terror attacks on Paris, many of those same feelings flooded the world media, this time for the City of Light (a wave soon followed by rueful acknowledgment that earlier ISIS atrocities, from Beirut to Baghdad and Aden to Ankara, had elicited far less sympathy in the Global North). Adding to the shock this time was the horrifying realization that these terrorists, in targeting random civilians at a sports event, concert, cafes, and restaurants, were attacking not simply a city or a country but the very idea of pleasure, diversity, conviviality—an assault on so much of what makes life worth living.

But just as in the United States in the weeks after 9/11, all too many politicians and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic cried out for war and vengeance, demanded draconian new policing and surveillance powers, and insisted on an end to accepting more refugees. French President François Hollande, vowing that “France will be pitiless against the barbarians” of ISIS, went so far as to invoke Article 42.7 of the European Union treaty, which stipulates that all EU nations are obliged to come to the aid of a fellow member who is the “victim of armed aggression.”

Republicans and other critics in the United States used the tragedy to attack the Obama administration’s Syria policy, without offering coherent alternatives. Perhaps most despicable was the backlash against those fleeing the civil war, with more than two dozen Republican governors announcing that their states would no longer accept Syrian refugees. Several GOP presidential candidates, echoing the neoconservative pundits, seemed to be in a competition to see who could be the most Islamophobic. There’s plenty to criticize regarding President Obama’s Syria policy, but in his press conference in Turkey, the president was scathing, and admirable, on this point: “When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims; when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted…that’s shameful. That’s not American…. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

The Islamophobia is racist, of course, but it also plays right into the hands of ISIS, as does the war fever. The terror group has been quite clear that its strategy is to eliminate what it calls the “grayzone” where Muslims and non-Muslims live in harmony. It aims to provoke Western governments into clamping down on their own Muslim populations, the better to drive them into ISIS’s arms. In its magazine Dabiq, ISIS applauded George W. Bush’s post-9/11 language: “Bush spoke the truth when he said, ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.’ I.e. either you are with the crusade or you are with Islam.” Les extrêmes se touchent.

Obama also sharply rebutted demands that he militarily solve what has become the world’s most intractable conflict, pointing out the immense complications of imposing a no-fly zone on Syria, and observing that while a US invasion could probably rout ISIS from its strongholds temporarily, without a local population “pushing back against ideological extremes,” the terrorists would resurface as soon as American forces left. Years of bitter experience demonstrate that US military intervention in the Middle East has done more to provoke extremism than to stanch it. It was the US invasion of Iraq, after all, that led directly to the birth of ISIS. The terrorists know this, which is why they’re doing everything they can to drive the West into deeper military engagement.

Regarding another crucial driver of not only the Syrian civil war but Islamist extremism throughout the region, the president’s policy—like those of previous administrations and most Western governments, including France—has been disastrous. This would be Washington’s close, decades-long alliance with the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia. As Laila Lalami points out, no force has done more to fund Islamist extremism in the Muslim world than Saudi Arabia. These so-called allies of ours, along with other Gulf kingdoms and the seemingly more moderate Islamist government of Turkey, have showered jihadi groups among the Syrian rebels with arms and money, to the point that they are now the only significant armed forces opposing the Assad regime.

There is one ray of light amid the carnage: The attacks have given urgency to international negotiations to end the war in Syria. Russian and US leaders seem to have finally realized that unless they cooperate diplomatically to resolve the conflict, it could destroy the entire region—and continue to spread beyond it. Before the latest round of talks in Vienna, Washington sensibly abandoned its insistence on excluding Iran, as well as its demand that Assad’s immediate departure be a condition of the talks. There are immense hurdles to overcome, but at least both countries now know that as long as this conflict lasts, ISIS will only grow stronger.
http://www.thenation.com/article/assault-on-life/


Islamophobia plays right into the hands of Isis
Since the Paris attacks, anti-Muslim prejudice has grown, promoted by the media. That’s exactly what Islamic State wants
Wednesday 25 November 2015 17.57 GMT
Owen Jones


Indian Muslims shout slogans during a protest against Isis: ‘What needs emphasising is the distance that exists between Isis and the quarter of the world’s population that is Muslim.’ Photograph: Biswaranjan Rout/AP

When a Muslim optician told me of the hate crime committed against her, it was her flippancy that shocked me most. She was driving to work when a man parked his van in front of her. When she objected, he yelled: “You’re a fucking Muslim – leave the country.” But her tone was one of casual resignation: it was just one of those things, an unfortunate occurrence to be met with a weary shrug. She didn’t respond, because she felt she would simply reinforce a narrative of being “an aggressive Muslim”. It didn’t end there. Later, at work, a couple had to be persuaded to let her see to them – again, because she was a Muslim.

The first of these incidents was not reported to the authorities. We do know that 115 anti-Muslim attacks were reported in the seven days after the Paris atrocity – a threefold increase. As with the optician, the victims tended to be women, singled out because they were wearing hijabs. In Fife, a man and a woman were violently assaulted by more than a dozen people outside their takeaway shop, their assailants berating them over the Paris atrocities. In a more heartening incident, passengers turned on a bigot yelling abuse at a 23-year-old Muslim woman on a train in Newcastle.

These are not just terrible examples of bigotry, of hatred directed at people having the audacity to get on with their lives. Those responsible are not just bigots, but recruiting sergeants for Islamic State. When Isis executes its attacks, it has a script. It knows that Muslims will be blamed en masse in the aftermath. One of its key aims, after all, is to separate western societies and their Muslim communities: if Muslims are left feeling rejected, besieged and hated, Isis believes, then the recruitment potential will only multiply.

“Central to its world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims,” as Nicolas Hénin, a former French hostage of Isis, wrote, “and every day its antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence.” The blind executors of the extremists’ wishes are not only on British shores, of course: in the US Muslims have to endure growing threats of violence and abuse.

It would be comforting to dismiss this anti-Muslim prejudice as the preserve of a few knuckle-dragging thugs. But what is so uniquely dangerous about it – undoubtedly much to the delight of Isis – is that it is sanctioned and promoted by the media. The now infamous Sun headline – claiming “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis” – is just a particularly striking example. The poll said nothing of the sort: the pollsters compiled a list of “Muslim surnames”, and asked whether they had a “lot of sympathy”, “some sympathy” or “no sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria”. These fighters represent a diverse array of groups – far beyond the likes of Isis – and, in any case, a poll of the British public as a whole produced very similar results. Unsurprising: it turns out some of the recipients interpreted “sympathy” as “feeling sorry for them”.

Some of the media’s attacks are beyond sinister. A Daily Mail cartoon provoked understandable comparisons with 1930s Nazi propaganda after portraying gun-toting Muslim refugees entering Europe amid rats. It is generally more subtle than that, of course. But it helps create an atmosphere where anything goes; where bigotry seems officially sanctioned and legitimised. Muslims become seen as the enemy within, a fifth column, a near-homogeneous group defined by their hostility to western values – or indeed the west full stop. “Muslim” becomes synonymous with “extremist” and “potential terrorist”.

Again: it is worth reiterating just how much this is the realisation of Isis’s aims and ambitions. There is always inevitable debate following an atrocity about the relationship between Islam as a religion and these extremists. I am no expert on the Qur’an, but it strikes me that jihadis who order Islam For Dummies before heading off to fight in Syria, or who drink booze and smoke weed, aren’t exactly au fait with it either. The first Muslim suicide bombing seems to have taken place in the 1980s, well over 1,300 years after Islam first emerged. Many would also argue that the Qur’an forbids the killing of innocent people.

But regardless of how murdering extremists interpret Islam, and whatever they glean from the Qur’an to justify their atrocities, it is surely sufficient to say that the vast majority of Muslims reject their interpretation. It sounds obvious, but it desperately needs stating. It suits Isis down to the ground to have its opponents dress it up as the purest version of Islam, and indeed as the authentic representative of Muslims. What needs emphasising is the distance that exists between Isis and the quarter of the world’s population that is Muslim – and indeed the vast majority of Isis’s victims are Muslims. But after every major Islamist terrorist attack, that gap is emphasised less and less.

The polling on anti-Muslim prejudice is sobering: in the US, a recent survey discovered that 38% of Americans would refuse to vote for a “well qualified” Muslim candidate for US president. Nearly a third of Britons believe Islam threatens western liberal democracy. Further attacks by these murderous nihilists will only push those figures higher. That is what Isis wants, of course. And that is what is so profoundly depressing. It writes its script, and there are no shortages of volunteers to follow it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ic-state-paris





Donald Trump (Calon Pilpres AS) Tuding Obama dan Hillary Clinton di Balik ISIS
SENIN, 04 JANUARI 2016 | 06:17 WIB


Donald Trump.

TEMPO.CO, Missisipi -Donald Trump menuduh Hillary Clinton dan Barack Obama bertanggung jawab penuh atas munculnya Negara Islam Irak dan Suriah, atau yang lebih dikenal dengan ISIS. Hal tersebut disampaikan Trump saat kampanye di Biloxy, Mississippi, seperti dilansir dari The Guardian, Minggu, 3 Januari 2016.

“Mereka lah yang membuat ISIS. Hillary Clinton membuat ISIS bersama dengan Obama,” ujar Trump, yang merupakan calon Presiden Amerika Serikat dari Partai Republik.

Dalam kampanyenya, Trump mengatakan Obama harus mengindahkan seruannya bagi Amerika Serikat untuk menyita aset minyak yang dikendalikan oleh ISIS, bukan malah sebaliknya, yakni mengizinkan kelompok teror tersebut mencapai kesejahteraan.

"Saya sudah memprediksi banyak hal. Anda harus berkata, 'Dapatkan minyaknya, ambil minyaknya, jaga minyaknya,’ Benar? Saya telah mengatakan hal tersebut selama 3 tahun, tapi semua orang berkata, 'Oh, saya tidak bisa melakukan itu. Maksud saya, ini adalah negara berdaulat!’" ujar Trump.

Selain Clinton dan Obama, tuduhan juga dilayangkan Trump kepada Iran. Trump menuduh Iran ingin mengambil alih minyak di Arab Saudi. "Di Teheran mereka membakar kedutaan Saudi, Anda tahu itu?" kata Trump sambil membuka sambutannya.

"Sekarang, apa yang selalu ingin dikuasai dari Arab Saudi? Mereka ingin minyak, paham? Mereka selalu ingin itu,” tutur Trump.
http://dunia.tempo.co/read/news/2016...-di-balik-isis

-------------------------------

Biasalah ... karakteristik dan kelakukan mereka memang begitu sejak zaman Baheula dulu (era CRUSSADE) ... untuk maksud hendak memadamkan cahaya Allah (Islam) di suatu wilayah di muka Bumi ini. Tapi sejarah mencatat, yang terjadi kemudian justru sebaliknya, cahaya Allah itu semakin terang-benderang, sehingga setiap hari semakin banyak warga mereka sendiri yang justru berpindah keyakinan dari sekuler kepada cahaya kebenaran tadi, sehingga bertambahlah kebencian mereka pada agama Allah itu. Wallahu'alam.