Of course! It all makes sense now. I’ve been busy arguing with Ron Paul supporters in the comments on this post and it turns out those pseudo-libertarian neo-Nazis were right all along.
Islamic terrorism is just “blow back” created by western civilization “meddling” in Muslim affairs by not allowing them to censor western authors or kill blasphemers. Worse “blow back” is generated when famous authors are honored for their literary accomplishments in direct defiance of of the wishes of our Muslim overlords.
And here I thought that Muslim political violence was motivated solely by the desire to spread the banner of Islam across the world, it turns out it’s caused by us not accepting the dictates of the Muslim mob. It’s a subtle distinction, but one I’m sure the mighty Ron “Let’s listen to what Al-Qaeda has to say” Paul will understand and be able to navigate.
Maybe we can avoid more “blow back” by killing all the homosexuals in America and banning bikinis. Why don’t we close all the liquor stores and ban eating pork. See, once you get the hang of it, avoiding “blow back is easy. So easy they even have a name for people who do it well.
Dhimmi.
Jihad Watch is also blogging on this. Here’s the Daily Mail article.
UPDATE: England capitulates. So much for a stiff upper lip. Fox is reporting that Rushdie’s Knighthood has been withdrawn.
UPDATE: Opps. I jumped the gun on that one. His Knighthood is still in effect.
Islam was Islam before the United States supported Israel for 50 years. Why were there no attacks on US interests before then? Why didn’t they hate our freedoms back when we were, you know, even more free?
Why was there a decades-long period when Middle Eastern terrorists attacked primarily British and French interests and left the United States almost entirely alone? If they’re motivated primarily by their religion, they should be equally motivated to attack everyone in the West – right?
Why was every major political and social movement in the Middle East from 1917 to 1979 primarily secular?
What changed the course of Middle Eastern political development from increasing secularism to religious radicalization?
Until you can answer these questions, you really have no grounds for your argument.
Islam did attack the U.S. interests in the late 1700’s which ended in President Jefferson sending in a large military force to north Africa to crush the Barbary pirates.
The Ottoman empire fought against us in WW1. They also committed genocide against Armenian Christians. They were Muslim.
The 13 Waffen SS Division in WW2 was comprised of more than 20,000 Bosnian Muslims.
Many Americans, by the way, were not more free 50 yearsago. Blacks, women, Irish … the list goes on. Muslims would have liked the America of Jim Crow and ghettoized Catholics I’m sure, but America is set up so that no group can be denied its rights. That is likely the freedom that people who institutionalize persecution of non-muslims hate.
So riddle me this Fluffy. Why are Muslims out to get the Dali Lama? Is he a Zionist?
America wasn’t attacked on our soil in the until globalization made it possible for middle class young arabs to jet around the world, take flying lessons and get one way tickets on passanger planes. So what do you suggest? We keep Arabs poor? Not sell them airline tickets?
If the world wide conversion of all people to Islam by the sword is a tenant of Islamic tradition (at least Wahabbism and other fundamentalist schools) what impetus do Muslims have to NOT attack us?
I realize it’s a difficult argument for many keyboard warriors, but AQ has frequently been an ally (and continues to be an ally in a couple hot spots right now) of the DC-regime. Where will I find your articles on Albania, Kosovo, and Chechnya, Syria and Lebanon detailing as much?
Your understanding of history is extraordinarily shallow.
The Barbary pilots were mere robbers and slavers who robbed anyone whose ships they could reach. Their Islam was about as relevant to their piracy as the Gambino crime family’s Catholicism was relevant to their crimes.
We declared war on the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, by the way. The Ottomans were allied with the Germans and Austro-Hungarians. Are you claiming that the First World War was a jihad? That would have been news to the Kaiser. In addition, the massacres of the Armenians took place largely after Attaturk deposed the Ottomans, and installed his secular “Young Turks” regime. If the Attaturk regime is an example of radical Islam it will come as news to virtually every historian.
The Waffen SS had recruits from many European states and ethnic groups. It was primarily recruited from among Dutch and Scandinavian populations. Are you claiming that the Dutch and Scandinavians who signed up were inspired by Islamic jihad?
No one can look at the history of the Middle East in the 20th century and fail to see the following rough outline of events:
As the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, various Arab and Turkish nationalist groups arose which advocated rapid modernization and secularization to catch up with Europe. Some areas outside of Ottoman control, such as the Pahlavi regime in Iran, were ruled by monarchies that also favored modernization and secularization as tools to retain their tenuous grip on independence. In areas either ruled as colonies or mandates by the British and French, secular nationalist groups tended to overlap with anti-Colonial movements. The use of paramilitary violence against British and French colonial forces was common, and eventually terrorism was employed against civilians seen as supporting colonial regimes [most notably in Algeria, which was the first and still most successful instance of Arab terrorism as a political tool]. Between 1948 and 1979, these secular nationalist groups were gradually discredited, for several reasons: their inability to successfully resolve the Palestine question; misrule based on the fact that many of the groups favored one-party socialist rule [with all the attendant inefficiences of such a system]; association with brutal authoritarianisms like that of the Shah. Further, beginning in 1979 Muslim publics were who losing patience with their existing regimes had the example of the muhajadeen rebellion in Afghanistan to look at, and the success of that movement seemed to imply that secularization was not the way to go after all. If secularization produced decades of humiliation at the hands of the Israelis, while religious radicalism produced essentially the destruction of a superpower, it’s not surprising that the Arab street started to think that maybe radical Islam might be the way to go.
In a very real sense the “natural” secularization of the Middle East that was underway in the middle of the 20th century was undone by the actions of the United States, in sustaining the state of Israel, in supporting the Shah, and in sponsoring the radical Islamic resistance to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We had good reasons for doing all of those things, but the fact remains that we did them. If we take our thumb off the scale in the Middle East, perhaps the organic movement of history can resume once again.
If you ever read Jefferson’s papers, you’ll see quite clearly that your “mere” robbers and thieves told envoys from America that they were following the Koran’s dictates. To compare the Barbary corsairs to the Gambinos is extremely shallow. Where were the slaves, American and Eurpoean citizens, sold who were taken in these raids? Christian countries? No they were sold as part of a thriving slave trade in the Muslim world that still goes on to this day. Jefferson’s strong reaction prevented Muslim states from prey on American ships for fear of invasion. Which is my point.
Certainly you’re not implying that a warmongering United States declared war on a innocent Ottoman empire? Certainly you don’t suggest that the Ottoman Empire wasn’t an expansionist Islamic state?
It is in vouge to blame U.S. support for Israel for Muslim terrorism, but again that doesn’t explain the jihad on Buddhists. Hamas burned a church in gaza, are Paestinian Christians being punished for their support of Israel? What about Salman Rushdie?
The Muslim SS example was just to illustrate that Muslims are not predisposed to peaceful co-existance witht the world any more than anyone else. They gladly joined the Nazis, including helping push forwward the Holocaust, prior to there even being an Israel.
Saying if we withdraw the middle east will suddenly become secular is not good policy, it’s a wish. Why would they secularize after forcing the west’s hand? Why wouldn’t an invigorated Jihadist movement follow us back, the way they followed the soviets back from Afghanistan and began fighting in Chechnya?
And more to the point of this post, if Islamic terrorism is caused by “blowback” explain 1400 years of Islamic violence against the world. Your theory of Muslims puts forward that they’re simply reacting to the world, that they cannot be proactive and aggressive. You’re claiming that if we ignore them, they’ll get bored, settle down and become like us. In your theory Jihadist lack ambition and determination and most importantly a goal beyond fighting America. I don’t see any of this in the news. Jihadist have a goal that includes America but isn’t a reaction to it, and that’s following the will of the prophet and spreading Islam by the sword.
And if this isn’t true than please work the Jihad against the Buddhists into the frame work of your “radical Islam was caused by America and Israel” routine.
C Bowan
I’ve never said Al-Qaeda wasn’t a CIA proxy against the USSR. This site is more present day concerns but if you have evidence of the government still working with Al-Qaeda that doesn’t come from some kook (Ed Brown, Aaron Russo, Alex Jones) do share.
If it doesn’t take you away from your non-keyboard warrioring. I’m sure your active and about all day, fighting the good fight, doing all sorts of manly things…
Pingback: University Update - Ron Paul - Salman Rushdie the Cause of Islamic Terror! Ron Paul Vindicated!
Rob;
Are you telling me you are entirely ignorant about Chechnya, Kosovo and Albania?
What sort of site is this again? Invade the World, Invite the World?
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/fr033199.htm
No but are you saying clinton policy is a current concern Clinton’s support of Jihadists in Europe is well known, and in fact more than 10 years old. In that region it would be more of a concern for us today to have Bush follow through on his misguided independent state policy.
Chechnya? Muslim terrorists trying to destabilize a country a former KGB agent considers his. A tragedy to be sure, but little we, or Clinton, could do about it.
Invade the world, invite the world? Nice rehash of ANSWER rhetoric commie. So what’s your point? Al-Qaeda profited from America during the cold war so we should capitualte to their demands, allow the rest of the world to be coverted by force and hope that Wahabbism’s goal to unite the world under the banner of Islam stops at our border indefinitely?