Bill Clinton recently demonstrated the tenacity of those liberal/leftist/materialist paradigms that have all but blinded the West to reality. According to the Associated Press:
Former U.S. President [and current spouse of the U.S. Secretary of State] Bill Clinton warned Monday that the rampant poverty that plagues oil-rich Nigeria—felt most acutely in its Muslim north—is fueling the religious violence now tearing at the nation. A radical Islamist sect known as Boko Haram claimed Monday it killed 12 soldiers and beheaded three government informants in its bloody wave of sectarian violence against Nigeria’s weak central government [the report later adds that Boko Haram has so far killed 286 people this year alone, that is, in just the last six weeks]. While Clinton never named the sect in a speech Monday night in Nigeria’s commercial capital Lagos, he admitted he remained “really worried” about the security challenges in Africa’s most populous nation.”You can’t just have this level of inequality persist. That’s what’s fueling all this stuff,” said Clinton… New government statistics released Monday showed that in Nigeria’s northwest and northeast, regions besieged by Islamic insurgents, about 75 percent of the people live in poverty [emphasis added].
The remainder of the article tells of how “analysts” agree with the poverty-fuels-jihad thesis, and how “Clinton called for Nigerians to embrace their similarities,” arguing that “It is almost impossible to cure a problem based on violence with violence.”
Thus, Clinton, analysts—even the New York Times—all offer a perfectly palatable reason for the violence plaguing Nigeria, one that accords well with the materialist worldview, and one that, as usual, defies reality. Consider some simple facts:
First, Islamists of the north, led by Boko Haram, began their violent jihad in earnest, not because they realized they were financially impoverished, but because a Christian won what was described as Nigeria’s freest and fairest elections. After all, as Islamic law clearly teaches, a non-Muslim is not permitted to govern Muslims—not because he is bad for the economy, but because he is an infidel.
Pages: 1 2