The Vice President of the Jihad Watch Advisory Board, Hugh Fitzgerald, here tackles a common false claim: that poverty breeds jihad, and money will restore peace.
This constant refrain about young Muslims turning to "militant Islam" or "Islamism" or somesuch because of poverty can be answered in two ways.The first way is to point out that the extensive studies by sociologists of the backgrounds of many hundreds, or even thousands, of Muslim terrorists have all concluded that on the whole, they are much better off and much better educated than the average Muslim. The terrorists have included the scions of both what may be described as among the First Families of Egypt (Ayman al-Zawahiri's grandfather's brother was Azzam Pasha, the first Secretary of the Arab League; Al-Zawahiri was a doctor) and Saudi Arabia (the Bin Laden family is, after the Al-Saud, possibly the richest family in Saudi Arabia), as well as urban planners (Mohammad Atta), successful computer engineers ("Mike" Hawash), mild-mannered accountants, and so on.
So the idea that poverty is the problem, which simply helps everyone avoid looking squarely at the theory and practice of Islam over 1300 years, can easily be shown to be nonsense.
The second way, however, is to pretend, for a minute, that "poverty" might have something to do with it -- that when Muslims are poor, they necessarily find solace in Islam and become "immoderate" Muslims. Suppose that were true? What would that mean? Are Infidels supposed to guarantee a particular standard of living to all Muslims living in the West, not to mention elsewhere, so that they never feel sufficiently put upon, do not feel that they are falling behind in their own standard of living? Would that make sense? Is that the Infidel man's new burden?
And what about other kinds of setbacks? What about the Muslim who is rejected by an Infidel woman he is courting, and feels slighted as a result, and resentful, and....well, you know. What about the Muslim who loses his job, and is mad at his Infidel boss, and....well, you know. The problem is this: there are a thousand, or a million reason, why people feel bad, how they suffer in one way or another. We who are not Muslim do not have at hand a ready grid for the universe which teaches us to blame and hate the Infidel. We who are not Muslim do not have at hand a prism, constructed from the verses of Qur'an, and the Hadith stories, and the supposed facts of supposed Muhammad's supposed existence, a prism through which Muslims can view the universe -- and again, blame the Infidel.
And so what are we Infidels to do? Spend the rest of our lives making sure that no Muslims are unhappy, or going directly to the problem itself -- the ideology of Islam, and working to deprive Muslims of the major means of doing us harm, through terrorism and outright warfare (taking away their major weaponry), or through demography (ending all Muslim migration to Infidel lands, and reversing the flow wherever that can be accomplished), and Da'wa (identifying, and countering, all the ways that Da'wa is conducted, all the places it finds its most likely victims).
And then creating the conditions where Muslims themselves, through simple observation, can learn or be forced to learn that what is wrong with their societies, politically, economically, socially, and intellectually, is entirely owed to the teachings of Islam itself. The Soviet Union collapsed because Communism was found to have failed. The outside world, chiefly the United States, helped create the conditions in which that failure was impossible for Soviet citizens to ignore or explain away. The same thing can be done, much more slowly and with much more difficulty, with Islam -- showing its own followers that, for example, it is inshallah-fatalism that keeps them from having developed real economies, and it is the spirit of submission to authority, and blind obedience, that makes despotism such a natural part of Islam. And if Muslims wish not merely the goods and services of the Infidel world, but to be able to produce those goods and services themselves, they will have to at least constrain Islam, as Ataturk did, if they cannot -- out of filial piety -- recognize openly how Islam holds people back, and prevents individual achievement, scientific inquiry, artistic expression.
Does poverty breed jihad?
No...
Islam breeds poverty,more importantly,it breeds hatred for the infidel and the Jew which in turn is the true cause of Jihad.
If poverty was really the root of terrorism then we would have daily bombings here in the US.
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols weren't living on welfare when they bombed the Murrow federal building.
Poverty is usually linked to crimes like theft or drug dealing,crimes that are property related.Car thieves don't fly planes into building,Islamic terrorists fly planes into buildings.
JLP
krkrjak~ Just a thought: perhaps that Was the original reason for all the prayers- keep them from being as productive as they could have been, blaming others for the problems that lack of productivity caused, thereby keeping them under control.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sort of like Welfare was Not supposed to do.
Very well put, Hugh.
Your description of how the west hopes to placate the Islamic world reminds me of how an acquaintance described his dealings with a family member with "Borderline Personality Disorder." (I had never heard of it but he tells me BPD is in the DSM-IV). He spent an inordinate amount of time trying to guess what might upset her and trying to head such confrontations off.
I agree with you on the importance of “creating the conditions where Muslims themselves, through simple observation, can learn or be forced to learn that what is wrong with their societies, politically, economically, socially, and intellectually, is entirely owed to the teachings of Islam itself,” but how? There are very few souls out there willing to put the pursuit of truth above the deep cultural attachments especially to religion.
Everyone who ought to be able to articulate a vision of Islam which could fit into the American political tradition seems most untrustworthy.
Some Jihadists are educated and/or well to do. But who can deny that masses of impoverished Muslims don't hate the prosperous West? Especially in this day of TV images and Muslim propaganda channels available via satellite.
A worldwide resentment is being incited by the Muslim media outlets and in Jihadist (Saudi funded) mosques. I've read you can go in mixed neighborhood in Holland and the houses with the satellite dishes are the Muhammadan ones.
The Muslims have explosive demographics all over the world. They want to swamp Israel with their numbers. They took over Kosovo and Lebanon partly with their demographic Jihad. Every poor male and female Muslim in the world is a fighter in the demographic Jihad
Walter Laqueur slams the lid on the poverty makes terrorists myth.
A more meaningful hypothesis is that Islamic societies are incapable of organizing their means of production to compete with other political economies such as the greco-roman-judeo-christian West or the indo-hindu-sino-confucian-nippon-shinto East. The postulate is that the poverty of the Islamic world is homegrown. It is the same argument that explains why Inca emperor Atahualpa was dragged in chains before His Catholic Majesties and not the other way round.
Lets look at the source.
What we find is that the "West" as a kind of common entity that includes the U.S.A. is actually almost as philosophically opposite as was the case with the U.S.S.R. The claim of poverty-induced terrorism is the "Baran-Wallerstein revision" in action.
++++
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=13&q=http://wildmonk.net/&e=7388
"The Cold War is Not Over: Europe and the Post-Modern Left"
Mark Brittingham, Ph.D.
"Summary: I have discussed Post-Modern political theory, epistemology, criticism and economic theory in four distinct treatments. However, all of the thinkers in these lines of inquiry share the common objective of undermining the dominant Democratic Capitalist order. This objective binds the players together in a web of both overlapping theory and political action. The economic theorists provide energy and urgency to the philosophical attempt to construct an alternative theory of political life. The epistemological attack on rationality opens the door to the dismissal of defenses of the Democratic tradition by conservative economists, literary critics, and political philosophers."
"That is, if facts are presented to contradict the Post-Modern effort, they are easily dismissed as a manifestation of the "dominant, white, male patriarchy" and they are safely ignored in the attempt to build a "feminist economics" (or epistemology, etc.). If a non-white or female makes the observation, they have simply been "co-opted by the dominant world model." On the other side, an attempt to dispute the validity of "queer theory" or "ethnic studies" provides an inflammatory rationale for shouting down the critic as an obvious participant in the economic and philosophical oppression of third world peoples."
"Thus, the Post-Modern project enjoys both the energy of moral outrage and a philosophical cover for its errors that prevents anyone from undercutting the outrage. Attempts to point out its philosophical shortcomings are nearly useless because the expressions of this philosophy are maddeningly jargonesque and impenetrable. In this, Post Modern Leftism is enormously attractive to any party having a gripe against the modern world. Every failed state, every ethnic hustler, every ideological movement, every intellectual poseur, and every tyrannical thug has a stake in feeding and propagating this modern variant of Rousseau's Hydra. Its energetic rise in modern Europe will prove to be one of the great ideological challenges of the 21st century."
++++
Another perspective of "Baran-Wallerstein theory".
COMMUNIST TALKING POINTS
IN NEW DEMOCRAT STRATEGY"by Richard Roberts.
http://jrnyquist.com/roberts_2002_0117.htm
"Now for years you have heard me touting the Baran/Wallerstein theory (B/W) which states that Communism is now using Muslim terrorism (instead of the fat-cat “Workers of the World”) to destroy capitalism, and America in particular. With most of Western Europe already Socialist, it is but a small step to getting the populists to accept Communism, but “unilateral” America stands in the way. Once brought to its knees by Islam, then the utopian Communist Revolution can be implemented world wide. In the final assault on America, Russian, Chinese and North Korean nukes may be showered on us to finish the job.
Of course, few if any Islamo-fascists have any idea of the role they play in the Communist agenda, for by jihad, they have in mind quite another revolution: Purging the world of all those who will not convert to the radical Wahhabi faith. No matter, the Communists believe their military might would easily tame the Wahhabis. Previous evidence that I have cited that this Baran/Wallerstein strategy is being utilized already is the undeniable fact that France, Germany, Russia, and China provided Saddam with all the weapons he needed, and the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food scam provided the funds for him to buy these weapons (for which many are still owed). Moreover, we know that member nations of the U.N. Security Council had promised Saddam that they would never approve a resolution to remove him by force. So their stall game went on for years, but Bush took “unilateral” action with the help of thirty other nations."
++++
It's kind of weird that the Soviets/Russians,etc seem to have gotten off scot-free from all the crap they perpetrated for 50+ years, while most of the former party-leaders are still in charge. But the U.S.A. is singled out in the extreme and exaggerated as the pre-dominant evil. Even in the context of the Cold-war.
When the family franchise has, for so long, been piracy and slave trading, it's a little hard for people embued with such a powerful sense of entitlement (a salient feature of Borderline Personalities, I believe, Granny W) to adjust to modern market realities, outside of tapping into the generous social safety nets that are available to those who immigrate to the west without any intention of integrating into the societies around them.
Dennisw:
Just to be clear about your post, I expect your point is that widespread hatred of the west held by impoverished Muslims is not the product of anything "done" to them by the west, but rather the propaganda they have been fed by their masters, Islamist or Baathist, especially in the period since the Palestinian propaganda machine got going full steam and Israel became the "certified, approved grievance" as Bernard Lewis puts it.
As standards of living go in the Middle East, Israeli "Arabs" enjoyed a far better standard of living than their brethren living in neighbouring Muslim states right up to Oslo, when Arafat used his new economic resources to mount the Intifidas.
According to a Canadian abortion Doctor poverty
and race cause crime.
Doctor Henry Morgentaller was interviewed
about his clinic and how he's progressed over the
years since abortion-on demand was ruled legal,he took some credit for the lower crime rate in Toronto because the vast majority of his clients are poor and visibilty minorities.
Ironically Morgentaller was in a Nazi death camp
during ww2 because of his status that was perceived to be a burden on society and prone
to crime and laziness.
His theory is a little bit weak and dangerous
since it implies that people brought up in poverty like Abe Lincoln ,are predisposed to crime
and people in middleclass homes with decent education and artistic talents like Adolph Hitler are model citizens that contribute to a better
society.
AMERICAM MILITARISM FEEDS JIHAD
There is a word in Spanish which has no parallel word in English. The word is “petriotero” which means somebody who takes patriotism to a distasteful and irrational extreme. There are many American patrioteros here, who take any form of criticism by outsiders as “anti-Americanism”: an irrational phobia and hostility towards the USA. Many people like me, are in fact deeply saddened to see such a great nation being injurious to itself.
Any U.S. Citizen who kicks against the country’s “self harm” is in fact displaying pragmatic patriotism. Any foreigner who expresses unease (even about US internal matters) is often (although not always) merely expressing compassionate concern.
American conservatives (especially Republicans) do not share our analysis about what is good and bad for the USA, which is fine and is their democratic entitlement, it is sad however that so many of our conservative friends arrogantly claim to be the sole custodians of patriotism and adopt the Bushist mantra of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”.
As a foreigner my concern for your domestic matters (such as one quarter of the world’s prisoners being American, being the world’s largest debtor & polluter, gun control etc.) is purely academic and as I do not live in America and have no wish to do so (for no other reason than I am happy where I am) I concede that such issues do not affect me, and are not a matter of great concern. Your problems (real or imagined) are your business, and when you have a foreigner screaming that you suck, it causes you all to close ranks and tell me to ………….. [fill this in yourself] even if there is a grain of truth to my arguments. We are all human beings and the same applies in reverse. The internal problems (real or imagined) of Cuba, pre-invasion Iraq, China, North Korea, even Saudi Arabia are their business, and when you intervene, they too close ranks, albeit around cruel and undeserving governments.
When the USA, a technological/economic giant, but a diplomatic rabid midget, takes to the world stage and starts trashing the scenery, it then becomes the world’s business. The American nation is slowly becoming infamous for its over-enthusiasm to rush in where angels fear to tread - with predictable results. This weird uncontrollable urge to be the world’s policeman (driven by an inflated ego) is the root cause of Anti-Americanism, and anti-Americanism is the root cause of many of your international problems. The Muslims love to hate, and they will always hate non-Muslims especially Americans, but we must ask whether there is a question of degree. If the US had left Gulf War I to Syria, Egypt, Qatar and Saudi (who were more than capable) would 9/11 have happened? If troops had not been stationed in Saudi, would 9/11 have happened? Going back even further, to the 80’s, if the US had not heavily fostered the notion of international Jihad in Soviet occupied Afghanistan, would OBL have been such a rising star in the Islamist firmament? Don’t get me wrong – I think OBL should be boiled in oil, and I do believe that the USA is a decent country, but I also strongly feel that it is the author of its own misfortunes.
The USA’s interventionist policy is the cause of its 21st century woes. This interventionism (some would call it militarism) is based upon three completely flawed concepts:
A. That Muslims are capable of gratitude
B. That, deep down, the majority of Muslims want to live in a free democratic society where the state is separated from religion.
C. That Muslim countries have to somehow become third rate Islamic copies of the USA.
Based on these deeply erroneous principles you are now involved in a vicious little war in Iraq, which your hapless allies have been sucked into. The objective (as your much loathed liberals predicted) was illusory and the outcome disastrous and counterproductive. Another problem is that you have used the armed forces of your allies (namely the UK and Australia) frivolously and next time around (perhaps when you really need them) they are going to think twice before taking the US lead. Indeed, the US has played one of its best cards at the wrong moment.
In Vietnam, by early 1970, it was clear that it was all over, the objective had failed, yet there wasn’t a complete withdrawal until 1975. Now in Iraq, in 2005, we see that it’s all over, the objective (ill conceived as it was) has failed, and yet you are going to make the same mistake, your forces are going to linger for no reason in the name of national pride, and for a lost cause you will sacrifice your young soldiers. And the American public are also blinded by pride; like lemmings they all tumble of a cliff by following a mistaken leader.
JW – DW is greatly valued by me and many other people. It is however a deeply biased Conservative (Republican) forum, rather than simply an Anti-Islamist forum. JW – DW is the property of Mr. Spencer & Co, and they have the absolute and total right to make it whatever the damn well please. There is nothing wrong with this - as long as people are honest about the right wing and blindly pro-American agenda which it seems to adhere to. I am talking chiefly about the strange absence of information on the political events in Iraq, all of which leave the Republicans with egg on their faces and make Americans look very foolish. The rise of Islamist politicians in Iraq is by far the biggest Jihadist related story since 9/11 – and yet where are the postings? Where are the stories? Bashing Dhimmi Europeans and the much hated liberals is the order of the day, but where is the richly deserved (and badly needed) critique of the American government?
The posters here are a mixed bag, I believe there are some powerful minds and sharp wits amongst them, but sometimes the excentric Americanisms make me giggle like a school girl. I mean, please, let me tell you, Islam and Communism have almost nothing in common. Communism is not hereditary. Communists (what is left of them) do not emigrate en-masse and set up Communist communities. Communism is flexible and open to interpretation – look at China. Communism isn’t misogynistic.
The Commies put the first satellite and the first man into space - what did a Muslim ever do? Communism is (in practice) dire and reprehensible, Islam is dire and reprehensible – but this is really where the similarity ends. Anyway, do you know that every time you use the word “capitalist” you’re using a word coined by Karl Marx? So, by calling something “capitalist” you are using a Marxist analysis. Marxism did have a small impact on social science, whereas the Koran is just worthless mumbo jumbo gobbledygook from the Dark Ages.
My dear "Timbo":
You wrote: "JW – DW is greatly valued by me and many other people. It is however a deeply biased Conservative (Republican) forum, rather than simply an Anti-Islamist forum. JW – DW is the property of Mr. Spencer & Co, and they have the absolute and total right to make it whatever the damn well please. There is nothing wrong with this - as long as people are honest about the right wing and blindly pro-American agenda which it seems to adhere to. I am talking chiefly about the strange absence of information on the political events in Iraq, all of which leave the Republicans with egg on their faces and make Americans look very foolish. The rise of Islamist politicians in Iraq is by far the biggest Jihadist related story since 9/11 – and yet where are the postings? Where are the stories? Bashing Dhimmi Europeans and the much hated liberals is the order of the day, but where is the richly deserved (and badly needed) critique of the American government?"
Evidently you have not been paying attention. I have long maintained that the resistance to the global jihad is not a liberal or a conservative issue, but a human rights issue that people across the political spectrum should embrace.
Unfortunately, the Left seems uninterested in doing so, while the Right has done so only imperfectly. Have I pointed out those imperfections? Repeatedly. Have I ignored what is going on in Iraq? You tell me if these posts look like I am doing so, or endorsing the Administration's short-sighted Wilsonian project there (or even the Administration's domestic anti-terror stance):
"The cloud in the silver lining of the Iraqi elections" http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005267.php
Spencer: Anti-terror follies
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005228.php
Iraqi women eye Islamic law
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005172.php
Spencer: Buying Off Sharia?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004995.php
Iraq: Al-Qaeda attacks "apostates and their masters"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004972.php
Iraqi Shia leaders demand sharia law
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004948.php
If you're going to attack me, have at it. Better men than you have done so, and continue to do so every day. But at least get your facts straight.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Timbo~ so you are claiming that they are after the US / the West because of... what event in US / ME history?
The US involvement with the ME only goes back to the 1800s with the pirates out of Tripoli. At what point in the previous 1100 years of Jihad did they begin blaming the US?
timbo:
Did it ever occur to you that this is a conservative-dominated site because conservative/"right-wingers" are, as a rule, much better at recognizing threats to individual liberties than leftist collectivists like yourself?
It must really gall you and your kind to face up to the fact that the worst enemy of fascism in WWII was not Uncle Joe and his Western fellow travellers, but the "right-wing" Anglo-American grandson of England's richest duke.
Here are a few similarities between Islam and Communism:
They both are totaltarian ideologies that subordinate the individual's rights to the collective.
They are both internationalist and seek the demise of the nation state.
They are both utopian ideologies.
They both promise that, despite repeated, bloody and spectacular failures of both ideologies, "real Islam" or "real Communism" has never been tried.
They both subordinate economic progress to economically illogical and backward ideologies.
They both try to remake human nature to create a "new" man -- i.e. "the New Soviet Man" or "Allah's Obediant Slave."
They both try to spread their ideologies by war, enforced coversion, and conquest.
They are both such fragile ideologies that they must crush any dissent and criticism by force and terror.
Does poverty breed jihad?
Jihad is poverty - of themost fundamental kind - the spiritual Kind Turns out, its also bankrupt materially and intellectually as well.
"There is a word in Spanish which has no parallel word in English. The word is “petriotero” which means somebody who takes patriotism to a distasteful and irrational extreme."
By jingo, that's news to me.
Timbo is just a soldier of the war against RATIONALITY.
The first link I posted above is very coherent and insightful on that phenomenon.
And Mr. Timbo-- a person does not have to be a blind ideological slave (you are PROJECTING), to be anti-leftist... priorities, priorities. Take on the enablers first-- Moral/cultural relevatism, moral equivelency, indescriminate multi-culturalism/"diversity" bla bla bla etc. etc. Gag.
Timbo, we should take criticism from insiders or outsiders as being anti-American, because by definition that is what they are.
Merriam-Webster 11th collegiate Dictionary
anti-America: : opposed or hostile to the people or the government policies of the United States.
Story I heard today while shopping for that great Short Skirt to Fight for which I found!!
Germans had a big mail scare package was ticking called the man who sent it he had to come in and take out the Battries out of the sex doll he was sending back??? Seams it wasn't working for him!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Victory[FREEDOM] to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat let not the World be Deceived by them Amen
"JW – DW is greatly valued by me and many other people. It is however a deeply biased Conservative (Republican) forum, rather than simply an Anti-Islamist forum."
I don't know about that. While this is Robert Spencer's website, Ibn Warraq and I were appointed by him to his Advisory Board, and neither one of us could be easily summed up as Conservative or Republican, and at least one of us is not an American, and the other, you might be surprised to learn, has ties to faraway places, even, for example, in distant and exotic Europe.
Of all the websites that attempt to approximate, asymptotically, the truth about Islam, this is the only one where there is not a whiff of a celebration of the absolute rightness of the Free Market, nor a Chamber-of-Commerce endorsement of Business as the most inspiring and profound of all possible undertakings. If anti-Americanism as a European pathology is deplorable and stupid, and it is, and if that anti-Americanism long predated, and was never dependent upon, any particular behavior of America and Americans, and it did, one should perhaps spend one's time examining the psychic urges that prompt anti-Americanism, a pathology that in France, for example, has a history going back 200 years. And what is more, anti-Americanism and antisemitism are both pre-existing mental conditions, or pathologies, that have been cleverly played upon in redcent decades by Arab and Muslim forces, and their growing army of non-Muslim collaborators, in order to split the Western alliance. European collaborators with this venture, many of them simply hirelings, doing Arab bidding for petro-dollar gain, are supplemented by the corps of volunterrs, Far Right and Far Left, true believers in both the perfidy of America, and of "the Jews" or of both.
Lest this whole idea of American eagerness to patrol the world be for one instant believed, we should all recall that Washington's Farewell advice - to "avoid entangling alliances" -- was always taken to heart, and before World War II, the American army was the 18th largest in the world. After World War II, Americans did not relish spending trillions of dollars on protecting Europe and the rest of the non-Communist world virtually alone, and not only spent millions to help Europeans reconstruct (including Germans wallowing in self-pity, and continuing to spit at American soldiers well into the 1960s, and French obsessed with their own shrivelling grandeur, which grandeur was expressed by that ignoble soul, the man who did not lift a finger against the Germans during the war, and proceeded to parrot pro-Soviet propaganda for decades after, the intolerable Jean-Paul Sartre). Meanwhile, all the best Europeans, from Raymond Aron to Marion Domhoff, were firmly behind the United States. It is that generation that has died off, and apparently has not been replaced, in sufficient numbres. The loss of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and the disappearance of Encounter, the best magazine in the English-speaking world, for a long time supported by the C.I.A., has also not helped.
Europeans were given aid to reconstruct, but repaid that aid with the kind of gross ingratitude, and silliness about America, that is really, at long last, during the last few years, beginning to stick in every educated American's craw. Enough is enough. Europeans should thank god the Americans exist, and are wiling to spend their money and risk their lives, to undo the damage that, in many cases, has been the result of European willingness to support despots like Saddam Hussein, and their weapons programs, and to make the world more dangerous for everyone, but with only the United States willing to do something to undo the damage. The French aid for the Iraqi reactor, to the French refuge given to Khomeini (and the French roundup of Iranian anti-Khomeini exiles), the French support for every vicious dictator (was it 27 or 28 rooms that the French government paid for, two years ago, at the Plaza-Athenee, so that Robert Mugabe could be proerly feted even as he was murdering his opponents at home?), and supporting Yassir Arafat and the invented "Palestinian people" to the hilt, after all that had happened to the Jews of Europe. America has its problems, but no European has the moral right to criticize this country.
French greed, and German greed, led both France and Germany to allow into their countries millions of Muslims, supposedly "guest-workers" but there to stay, having settled in and now, it seems, impossible to dislodge. Other countries have followed suit -- Spain, for example, with Moroccan agricultural workers. Greed, accompanied by ignorance -- an ignorance about the tenets of Islam, the theory and practice of Islam, which only now, to their growing horror, and still with denial and brave talk about "integration" and references still to "root causes" of Muslim behavior that look high, and look low, but never seem to look at what in the mosques, madrasas, in the mental makeup of Muslims, causes them to view Infidels, and the universe, as they do. The entire continent of Europe is imitating O. J. Siimpson, running around trying to find the "real killer" -- anything at all -- unemployment, poverty, sexual frustration (that's why at least one European country is offering Muslims free courses in how to pick up local girls). Etcetera etceterum.
And it is not only the ordinary citizens in Europe who are now suffering, and will suffer permanently, from a large Muslim population allowed in by those self-confident European elite, so nasty about America, so sur de lui-meme et dominateur, as De Gaulle said so cruelly and inaccurately on another occasion.
If Europeans want to give up what makes Europe interesting, to surrender their own national histories, languages, literatures, quiddities, for a supranational state, which is all being done on the altar of Economic Growth and the Big Market, Americans can only deplore, but not stop them. Europeans accuse America, but homo economicus is more powerful in Europe than he is, today, in America. It is America, the America of European imagination, the America that is shallow and money-mad, that has risked and lost many lives, and spent hundreds of billions of dollars (It's all about the oil, Europeans self-assuredly and primly charge. What oil are Americans getting for one cent cheaper than any oil consuming nation? If we are imperialists, we must be pretty bad at the game, for we are spending hundreds of billions, and all we get, at the end of it, is a slightly less malevolent Iraq, with fewer weapons and somewhat more decnecy).
The current effort in Iraq is, at this point, completely idealistic. I think it is wrong, and stupid. I don't wish to support the Infidel Man's Burden. I want to create a situation where Muslims themselves have to begin to see that their political, economic, intellectual and social shortcomings all come from Islam itself. For Europeans to charge that America is playing at being the "world's policeman," one would like to ask what they are doing to relieve America of this unwanted, and unwonted, burden?
Why should it be the United States that, it is assumed, will "do something" about North Korea? Why us? Why should French and German and Austrian and English businessmen have helped Iraq and Iran in their weapons projects, and then the Europeans think it is all America's problem.
Does anyone doubt, that if tomorrow it were to be announced by a committee of distinguished astronomers that a large comet was hurtling toward the Earth, and that it would definitely strike us, and destroy life on earth, in the year 2018, that the entire world would look to America, and petulantly insist that "the Americans" should do something about it. And "the Americans" would, if they could. The general assumption that America can always be counted on, and at the same time can always be attacked, and that Europeans can continue to have their good lives (well, now with millions of Muslims, and the prospect of islamization, not quite as good as it might have been) and enjoy a much easier way of life, than Americans do, is beginning to get on American nerves.
I deplore the misallocation of American resources in Iraq (i.e., those that, after the election, continue to be devoted to that country, when we should be pulling out, and exploiting its fissures for our own purposes rather than sacrificing American soldiers to the task of putting Iraq not back in the condition it was in before the war, but in much better condition than it ever was in in the past. The idea that we must wait around until Iraqi forces are fully trained is nonsense. At the moment a huge effort is being made to train those forces. The Kurds will fight -- for Kurdistan. The Sunnis will fight -- for themselves, and against the Americans. The Shi'a will collaborate just a bit longer, for they don't mind seeing Americans stay to spend tens of billions more, and lose more soldiers -- why should any Muslim Iraqi care about Infidel lives, and why not pocket more Infidel money, for as long as possible?
Despite one's fury at this misallocation of resources, and the naivete behind it (for even if Esposito is no longer listened to, worshipful acolytes of Bernard Lewis, and Lewis himself, and "good Muslims" such as Aboul-Enein, still perniciously prevent a full understanding of Islam, the one indispensable subject, and the one thing almost no one in Washington, even in the Pentagon, has really bothered to study beyond the bromides and the Shia-and-democracy boosters who continue to mutter only about the "Wahhabis." It is infuriating to see those whose wellbeing has been, and still is, dependent on the American willingness to risk lives and spend money, to attack America in the most cliche-ridden way. America is full of things to criticize. Only a fool would think otherwise. But at this point, one begins to feel that only Americans have earned the right to point out its many faults. It is a job for the moment open only to Americans. Given the ignorance of America, and the ingratitude of others, this is a job for which no foreigners need apply.
As for the characterization of this website as predictably "conservative" and "Republican," unlike many sites that might with justice be desribed in that manner, no one at Jihadwatch has been singing the praises of the unfettered Free Market, or of the absolute rightness of everything the Bush administration does; in fact, there is constant criticism of Bush's seeming naivete about Islam, of the silliness of the State Department examples of dhimmitude (as when a State Department spokesman issued an absurd statement about Muslims forming part of Columbus's crew), of the activities on behalf of Muslims, and promotion of Muslim political power, by that "conservative" tax-cutter, a certain Grover Norquist, and of much else in this Administration.
If there is agreement among those on the Advisory Board, it is that the current excitement over "democracy" in the Middle East is premature, for there is no necessary connection between "democracy" in the primitive stripped-down sense of head-counting at election time, and a lessening of the role of Islam in the Middle East, or the menace of Islam everywhere. More than votes being counted in an election are guarantees of minority rights, and of individual liberties. You can start with the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, or with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- but without these, mere head-counting may not be preferable, in what it produces, to the results that may come, in Muslim countries, from an enlightened despot (an unenlightened despot is another matter). Mohammed V, the Shah of Iran, Habib Bourguiba, and above all Kemal Ataturk, at least when it came to constraining Islam and its promptings, were preferable to what their people, Moroccan, Iranian, Tunisian, and Turkish, would have voted for in a free and fair election.
Iraq is now a diversion, a distraction, from much more important tasks. These tasks include insuring that no Muslim country acquires major weaponry (Iran comes first), or is allowed to continue with weapons projects (Egypt and Syhria both come to mind). Europeans must be encouraged to deal forcefully to stop any further islamization, and to reverse the effects of the last few decades of frenzied appeasement, beginning but not ending with everything described by Bat Ye'or as the "Euro-Arab Dialogue" in her new book "Eurabia." Wherever possible, fissures within Islam should be exploited. These include Shi'a-Sunni animosities (in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Bahrain, and in the al-Hasa oil-producing region of Saudi Arabia). Other potential fissures could be encouraged by the establishment of an independent Kurdistan. Berbers in North Africa might begin, as well, to dream of a Berber state, and to express their resentments of Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism. The same sentiment might be encouraged in Indonesia, and Malaysia, and even in Pakistan, the toughest nut to crack outside of the Arab countries. Black African Christians should be supported, not abandoned (as happened during the 1967-69 Biafra War). Black African Muslims should be encouraged to look at Darfur, as well as at the history of the Arab slave trade (and the present Arab enslavement of black Africanbs in Mali and Mauritania and even, it is rumored, deep within Saudi Arabia itself). Saudi assets in the West should be seized, if there is not a complete cessation of Saudi funding of "extremist" (one hates to use that word, because it is so misleading, but let's run with it here) mosques and madrasas. The money from all those real estate holdings (or whatever liquid assets can be grabbed in time) should go to reimbursing American and other Western taxpayers for the gigantic security costs that are a direct result of the threaet of Muslim terrorism.
Instead of focussing only on terrorism, the American government should begin to educate a cadre of government experts on Islam who will not be fed the kind of thing that Esposito and Bechtold and other apolgists apparently concocted for the "reading list" of General Vines. If the reading list does not include books by Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or,and Ibn Warraq, that should be a dead giveaway. Turkish entry into the E.U. should not be supported, but opposed, by all Infidel states, including the United States. The Cold War is over; Turkish bases are not needed. It is time to treat Turkey realistically, and not on the basis of what, ten or twenty years ago, a certain "Kemalist" Turkey was thought to permanently be. It turns out that Kemalism is transient, but Islam is forever. And with that in mind, Turkey is now part of the permanent problem.
Muslims within Europe should cease to be appeased, or to believe that they can continue to make life difficult, dangerous, and expensive for the Infidels among whom they have, out of greed and ignorance by Infidel governments and elites, been allowed to settle. They must be made to chose between the Infidel civilization, which they will have to accept, or leaving. They cannot expect that civilization to be modified to accomodate them. It is an absurdity, not least given the clear teachings of Islam, which of course demand that Muslims work so that Islam
"will dominate" and Infidels be subjugated. This is not something made up by "conservative Republicans" at this or any other website. Only those who are willing to study the history of Islam, including the many ways which Muslims have devised to keep the full truth about Islam from being fully understood by Infidels for as long as possible, have a right to lecture or even descant upon the subject. If the toelrant Czechs, under Benes and Masaryk, could after World War II, when Germany was prostrate and no longer a military threat, could determinedly expel 3 million ethnic Germans (whose ancestors had lived in the Sudetenland for 600 years) without any hue and cry, and no one except German revanchistes have ever criticized that decision (it was the right one), Europeans can certainly do the same with the far graver security threat that Muslims within the Bilad al-kufr present. But that cannot happen if everyone pretends, or even believes, that such a threat does not exist.
It is charged, above, that this website is a kind of amen-corner for the "conservative" and "Republican" American government. Nonsense. Before suggesting that at Jihadwatch we are all a bunch of jingoists (and I was on the verge of suggesting that there is no equivalent to our marvellous English word "jingosim" in any other language, when I suddenly remembered poor old Monsieur Chauvin) please google one phrase --"Light-Unto-the-Muslm-Nations" Project -- and that should help to change your mind.
A "conservative" or "Republican" website? Those attempting to label this website should put away their Magic Markers. When I wake up in the morning, I don't know if I am a Democrat or a Republican, a Conservative or a Liberal, a Stalwart or a Half-Breed, a Guelf or a Ghibelline, a Blanco or a Colorado, a Big-Ender or a Little-Ender, in favor of le cru or peckish for le cuit, tending toward the metaphoric or veering toward the metonymic pole.
And that must hold as well for many others who visit this website, some to post, some to read, some to sit and think.
Thanks Catherine
The talk about short shirts and sex dolls really took the edge off.
Constraining Islam in order to facilitate industrial production of goods and services does have the potential to improve material conditions in the Islamic world. But not even 'constraining' Islam will enable the Muslim world's leaders to provide Muslims with the greatest and most desired asset of the western world: human rights and a positive view of human life accompanied by an appreciation for each and every human being as an INDIVIDUAL.
Islam is totalitarianism, even when 'constrained.'
It is a source of absolute misery and will continue to be so, even if it is modified. And rest assured, few if any imams will permit Islam to remain modified for long...
Bravo Hugh, Bravo!
Dear Jihadwatch
I'm not happy with the word "attack" I think this is a tad touchy. I would prefer
"constructive criticism".
That nest of vipers, the new Iraqi parliament met for the first time on Wednesday. A big event. Did you mention it? You mentioned a lot of VERY obscure things - but did you mention that? Today? Yesterday? No.
Oh, you posted 6 items that can't be judged as pro-American. You call this being balanced, compared to 600 European bashing articles? No, the word I use is tokenism.
So, you're a conservative pro-American forum. Just admit it; it's nothing to be ashamed of.
You have debated with better men than me? Good on ya! You probably have. Give that man a cigar! (preferably not Cuban). And what do you know about me? Do you know that I am published author? Does this matter? Not really... only the content of my argument matters – and I wish to God that I was discussing something trivial.
I must confess, you are a marked man amongst the Muslims, and for that you have my sincere respect. However, the threat hangs over us all. It could be me in the next Asian bar that the Jihadists blow up. It could be my wife in the next building destroyed by these madmen (she did in fact know somebody who was on a very low floor of the WTC on 9/11). I sincerely believe (and it is somewhat obvious) that the American Government has strengthened the Islamist cause, which threatens my personal security (and ultimately yours, and all non-Muslims). Am I upset and vociferous - you bet! Is Jihad Watch - no. Why? Because it's a pro-American conservative forum. Which is fine; but just be honest.
Going back to my point of “constructive criticism”. I don’t give a damn about alienating Muslims, these people have done a splendid job at alienating themselves, they don’t need our help. I do however think it’s a shame to alienate others. If you are sincere about presenting this fight as an apolitical multinational issue (which indeed it is), you could perhaps inject a little less politics and nationalism into the bias of your articles. You want an example? Check out the above article. How can possibly talk about the causes of Jihad and not mention US foreign policy, which your enemies claim is at its heart? OBL himself has said that it is the root of the problem. Despite all evidence and logic, you somehow completely divorce yourselves from the phenomenon. Yes, Islam is bellicose, and if you stupidly offer them clear motives for a fight (i.e. troops in Iraq & Saudi) then a fight you will get. You ask – “do they fight because they’re poor?” and conclude (more or less), “no they fight because Islam is an illicit and misguided belief system”. Yes it’s an illicit and misguided belief system that the USA has provoked into a huge and unnecessary conflict. The whole world understands this apart from you people.
As for my own personal input, and as for me being a lesser creature and so forth, well, I am not here to rock the boat. I would just like to give another perspective which is too often missing. Nevertheless, say the word and I will leave - never to return. It’s your bat and ball, your playing field – send me off if you wish. I’ll leave you all to agree with each other in splendid peace.
Hey Timbo,
Blaming America for Islam's violence is ludicrous. Your only arguments are based on history past 1990. I seem to recall plenty of other attacks on America prior to the first gulf war by Muslims. Perhaps you should rethink that American Foreign Policy is being shaped by the violence we've endured, and not that the violence is caused by our foreign policy. Are you going to blame India and Pakistan's fight over Kashmir on America too? Or perhaps the Chechan's holy war on Russia? Or the Muslim world's attack on Israel in 1947? All America's fault? I'm sure you could probably find some social problems in your country you could blame on America too.
Suzan,
70% of German military fatalities in WWII were inflicted by the Soviet Union.
Learn some history.
Hugh -
Funny how Americans always talk about WWII to support their bellicose mentality. The American role in WWII was most noble, even their part in the Korean War was sincere enough, as it was a UN undertaking. I believe that that such nobility died out in the late 50's, although the intervention in Guatemala's affairs was an early sign of trouble.
"..neither one of us could be easily summed up as Conservative or Republican.." then a bit later: "Europeans should thank god the Americans exist, and are wiling to spend their money and risk their lives..." PLEASE! Are you sure you're not conservative?
If you are talking about WWII, maybe, if not – PLEASE! Great Britain and France developed independent nuclear capability without US help. The USSR would never have dared to invade Western Europe. In the end the only NATO nation that called upon NATO's support was the USA in 2001 - and it was given. OK, Afghanistan was a pushover in the end, but nobody could have known this at the time. They could have been getting themselves into a nasty Soviet-style entanglement for all they knew, but the Europeans gave their support anyway.
In the 1980's, Sadam Hussein was supported by the USA as well. You seem to think that his dethronement did Europe a favour. Was he going to nuke us with imaginary nuclear bombs? Or was he about to overrun Europe with his superb army? I don't follow your logic. He hated Iran and was no friend of the Saudis or Syrians. He created a useful political balance in the region. His aggressive Socialist policies completely repressed all Islamist activism. He was a tyrant, but so what? Are the Iraqis grateful now they don't have tyranny? They got the government they deserved.
"French greed, and German greed, led both France and Germany to allow into their countries millions of Muslims, supposedly "guest-workers" but there to stay, having settled in and now, it seems, impossible to dislodge. Other countries have followed suit -- Spain, for example, with Moroccan agricultural workers. Greed, accompanied by ignorance -- an ignorance about the tenets of Islam, the theory and practice of Islam, which only now, to their growing horror, and still with denial and brave talk about "integration" and references still to "root causes" of Muslim behavior that look high, and look low, but never seem to look at what in the mosques, madrasas, in the mental makeup of Muslims, causes them to view Infidels, and the universe, as they do."
YES! SPOT ON! BUT WHO WERE GREEDY? - CAPITALIST INDUSTRIALISTS. NOT THE ORDINARY WORKING PEOPLE -NOBODY EVER ASKED THEM.
"Other potential fissures could be encouraged by the establishment of an independent Kurdistan. Berbers in North Africa might begin, as well, to dream of a Berber state, and to express their resentments of Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism."
YES! SPOT ON! It's the only good thing that can come out of the US invasion - but will it?
"I’ll leave you all to agree with each other in splendid peace."
What? The only point of common agreement here -- and even that is not a fixed point of repair -- is that the source for Muslim aggression (not merely terrorism, which is only one tactic) can be found in what Muslims are taught to believe, what hostilities their teachers, textbooks, madrasas, mosques, khutbas, sayings, entire culture, inculcates and inculcates. Why anyone should regard this constant, early and late, brainwashing, as having little or even no effect, is strange. It would be stranger if it did not mold the minds of Muslims, would it not?
Surely it would be stranger to believe that when people grow up surrounded by others who all believe the same thing, who are not permitted to openly dissent from that same thing, as the punishment for apostasy being at best permanent ostracism and at worst death, who hear in the sermons, and learn by rote from an early age, and have every newspaper article, every political speech, every television program, filled with allusions to Muhamamd, to Qur'anic passages or to the Hadith, to the endless perfidy of the Infidels, and their friendship with each other, and the need for all Muslims always and everywhere never to make friends with Infidels, but by opposing, end them. It may seem crazy that Believers are so moved and swayed by what was dictated by the Angel Gabriel as the literal word of God. This is very different from the Christian and Jewish understandings of their sacred texts, as rooted in time, as combining history with poetry (even love-poetry), as well as allegory, and prophecy, and revelation -- books written by men, over many decades or even over many centuries.
The role of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira over Believers can not be compared with, or analogized to, the role of the Bible. The only way to understand the central, overpowering, all-encompassing, all-explaining, role of Islam in a Believer's life is to compare it not with the lives of ordinary Christians, but only with the most fanatical and narrow Christian sect, one composed of people who live, eat, breathe, and have no other interest, except in their belief. In other words, what in other faiths would be the province of a "handful of extremists" is, in Islam, the norm for perfectly orthodox, mainstream Muslims.
Again it is insisted that American foreign policy explains, if not totally, at least in major part, the current Islamic fury and menace. No matter how many times this highly imaginative story has been put to bed, it keeps getting up in the middle of the night and reappears in its Doctor Dentons at the foot of the stairs, in all its childish innocence, while the grownups are trying to finish their conversation uninterrupted. This theory fails, because it utterly fails to explain the data. Coukd hostility to American foreign policy explain the plot, fortunately foiled, by Muslim terrorists in 1999 to blow up a Christmas market in Strasbourg? What in American foreign policy explains the repeated attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh? Or the 20-year genocide, with nearly 2 million Christian and animist victims, in the Sudan? Could the Sudanese government have proleptically been reacting to the Ameridan invasion of Iraq way back in 1982? Could the Nuer and the Dinka have been linked to the Republican Congressional Caucus, or Edwin Meese, or that American policy of helping Iraq during its war with Iran? What in American foreign policy explains, in Indonesia, the murders of 600,000 Chinese Christians and Confucians by Muslims in the 1960s, the murders of 200,000 East Timorese Christians, the continuing murders of Christians in the East Moluccas by Muslims, and the destruction of several thousand churches -- would that, too, be partly explained by America's invasion of Iraq, or support of Israel, or American bases in Saudi Arabia? Does American foreign policy explain why the Hindu population of Pakistan (formerly West Pakistan) has gone from 15% of the total in 1947 to 1% today, or in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) from 38% of the total, to 8% today? What in American foreign policy explains the near-disappearance of the remaining Indian Buddhists in the Chittagong Hills? Was it American foreign policy that caused the "jihad" against the Christian Ibo which lead to the war for an independent Biafra, the "jihad" identified by Colonel Ojukwu, the leader of Biafra, in his Ahiara Declaration of 1969? Was it American foreign policy, for that matter, that caused the seizure of Mesopotamia and Syria and Judea and Egypt and the rest of North Africa, or Zoroastrian Persia, or that led to the killing of 60-70 million Hindus during 250 years of Mughal rule? Was it American foreign policy that cuased the Jihad declared in West Africa in 1804, the Jihad declared in North Africa in the 1930s, the Jihad declared in the Sudan in the 1880s, the world-wide Jihad proclaimed from Constantinople in 1915? Did American foreign policy cause the Muslim Kurds to massacre Maronites in 1860? To cause Muslim Kurds and Turks to massacre Christian Armenians, screaming "giavour" at the victims, in 1894-1896? In 1915-1920? Did American foreign policy explain the massacre of the Assyrians by the Muslims in Iraq in 1933, five months after the British soldiers left? Does American foreign policy explain the intermittent pogroms against Jews throughout the Middle East, long before the state of Israel was established, or the slave-status of Jews in the Yemen, or the Farhud of June 1-2, 1941 in Baghdad? Does American foreign policy explain the riots, not "race" riots, but Muslim riots, in Bradford? The Muslim violence in France, where Infidel cars are routinely vandalized? The 80% of all rape cases in Sweden and Norway that consist of Muslims raping non-Muslim girls, as they have elsewhere, and the details make clear that in many cases there was a deliberate attempt to humiliate the non-Muslim girls precisely because they were non-Muslims?
The only explanatory model that fitsMuslim behavior now, and ten years ago, and fifty years ago, and three or five or eight or thirteen hundred years ago, is that which finds the explanation for Muslm attitudes toward Infidels, and Muslim behavior toward Infidels, in the canonical texts of Islam itself. If at times the Jihadiest impulse has been quiescent, that is either because Muslims were complacently unaware of the outside, non-Muslim world (but in that supposedly quiescent period, after the initial early conquests, there followed a thousand years of attacks on Christians, up and down the coasts of Europe, with Muslims looting and destroying property, and kidnapping nearly a million people from Western Europe; in Eastern Europe, among the Slavs, the figure was 3 million; in black Africa, it was tens of millions -- young African boys were the main object, and when caught, were castrated on the spot, then sent by slave coffle to the slave markets of Islam; only 10% survived the trip (see Jan Hagedorn, "The Hideous Trade").
How many more times must one repeat, and point to all the evidence that supports the belief, so obvious and yet so many Infidels are so reluctant to accept (no doubt because of all the unpleasantness that it implies will come, and the further implication that the conflict is without end) -- that it is not what we do (i.e., American policies) nor "what we are" as Bush and others seem to take that to mean (i.e., believers in "freedom" and "democracy"). It is not what we do, but it is also not that we "believe" in "democracy" and "freedom" (whatever that formulation itself may mean). What matters is only one thing: we are not Muslims, we are Infidels. Even if we had no interest in "democracy" and "freedom" we would still be the enemy. We were hated when we supported despots, and we will still be hated, as Infidels, when we support incipient or imaginary democracies.
If America is hated the most, it is only because it has not chosen the European path of appeasement at every step, and represents the single most powerful anti-Jihad force. That's it.
If European countries are to survive as non-Islamic polities, they must throw off the last three decades of encrusted Euro-Arab Dialgoue, and reverse course, and begin to stonily deny Muslim demands within Europe. They must understand Islam not for what John Esposito, or even Gilles Kepel, seems to think it is, but what hundreds of now-overlooked scholars, soon to be republished, have described it as being, in their own studies of Jihad and dhimmitude. The defectors from the army of Islam, such as Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, must be listened to, just as during the Cold War defectors from the KGB, and ex-Communists in the West proved to be the most valuable sources of information and guidance in dealing with the menace of Communism.
There is the way of appeasement. It has been tried, and continues to be tried. It will win nothing. It will ensure the islamization of Europe. It is a mad policy, by lords of misrule, who cannot admit that they were horrifically wrong in the first place in permitting the mass migration of Muslims to their countries. How can French and German and Belgian and Spanish leaders admit that their policies on Arabs and Islam have now led to a permanent danger in their countries, and created, for the indigenous Infidels, a situation that is more unpleasant, difficult, expensive, and physically dangerous, than it would have been without this large (and growing) Muslim presence. Who will dare to say it, in other than the most veiled of terms?
Meanwhile, if we are all, as charged, not only "Conservative" but also "Republican," and not only "Conservative" and "Republican" but also, at Jihadwatch, all in such lockstep agreeement (surely this charge was made by someone who has not seen the donnybrooks among posters that are a daily occurrence), each with each, that we are more akin to some groupuscule of Fascists.
Well, shall we all end the evening by singing "La Giovinezza" and behaving like the barilla? Or possibly closing down for the night with a rendition of that Phalangist hymn with which Spanish television would, many decades ago, always end the night's broadcasts.
Here goes:
"Lucharemos todos juntos/Todos juntos en union/Defendiendo la bandera/De la santa tradicion/Por Dios, la Patria y el Rey/Lucharon nuestros padres/Por Dios, la Patria y el Rey/Lucharemos nosotros tambien."
Why, minus "la Patria y el Rey," this quintessentially fascist song, with its appeal to the marching Group, and its emphasis on the "struggle" (whether German "kampf" or Russian "bor'ba" or Arabic "jihad" the word has been most sinisterly employed) and the "fight" for "God, the fatherland, and the king" (Phalangist version) or for "God, Muhammad, and the Umma" (Islamic version). Only two nouns to be replaced, and voila -- the perfect Fascist song becomes the perfect song for Jihadists everywhere.
Je blague et je divague.
But not entirely.
Tomilio,
History past 1990? Of course! 15 years is a long time!!! 15 years ago we still had the USSR to worry about - it was a different world.
Forget the 80's - move on. Welcome to the 21st Century.
I'm Australian & British by the way. I sometimes talk as if I'm in Europe because I spent 26 years there.
"Are you going to blame India and Pakistan's fight over Kashmir on America too?"
No, that was the fault of the British. They should never have given Kashmir to a Hindu maharaja. That's why India said it was theirs in 1947. Nothing to do with America.
"Or the Muslim world's attack on Israel in 1947?"
No, nothing to do with America. Like I said, your nation lost its way in the late 50's.
Hugh,
Islam is violent and oppressive by nature. You list atrocities, which are all true, and you're right, none of them were down to America. Nevertheless, these are (or were) all internal affairs of Muslim countries. This is what Muslims do. You either kill every last Muslim on the planet to stop these atrocities (a contradiction in terms) or you completely isolate the civilized world from them and provide a safe haven for its non Muslim refugees.
The middle option of tampering with their affairs is just inviting perpetual warfare and terrorism without end. It's impossible to teach these people a better way. The British tried for hundreds of years, the non Muslims of India took on many British ideas such as parliamentary democracy and free speech (republicanism, democracy and even Socialism were all European cultural imports into Asia) whereas the Muslims learnt nothing at all and quickly slipped back into a state of dictatorial barbarism. The freedom struggle was not against the British system and British ideologies, but against the British themselves.
In 1745 there had been no central government; India was a kaleidoscopic mixture of mutually hostile warring states and autonomous tribes. Contrary to common belief, the Mogul empire had effectively collapsed and imploded some 30 years before the first British conquests.
For their own selfish ends the British hammered back together what had been the Mogul Empire and made numerous improvements. By 1845 India was far more structured and peaceful. India was not free of course, although the old self-determination had only meant that the population was burdened with brown despots instead of white ones. It was only until the late 19th century that the words freedom and struggle were seriously paired.
"80% of all rape cases in Sweden and Norway that consist of Muslims raping non-Muslim girls" - gosh, I didn't know that! It's getting to the point where evicting Muslims from Europe is merely an act of self defence.
Timbo wrote:
"If the US had left Gulf War I to Syria, Egypt, Qatar and Saudi (who were more than capable) would 9/11 have happened? If troops had not been stationed in Saudi, would 9/11 have happened?"
If the US had left Gulf War I to the Arabs, Kuwait would still be the 26th (?) province of Iraq. Syria is Baathist. Egypt is too far away. Qatar is too small. The Saudi military is primarily a jobs program for young Saudi males. It is not an effective military organization. Besides, Saudis do not like Kuwaitis. Nothing except hand wringing and prayers to Allah that Saddam stop at Kuwait would have happened.
Bin Ladin used US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia as an excuse. His original goal was to replace the Saudi monarchy with a "true" Islamic government with himself at the head. Without US troops in Saudi Arabia, he would have found another excuse. Unless, of course, the Iraqis invaded.
The world's policeman. Hmmm. Just after I think that is a role that we should give up, I think, "If not us, who?". I believe that this is called "ambivalence".
The Europeans let the Balkan problem fester in their own backyard for several years until the US, in a "unilateral" effort, dragged NATO - not the Europeans, not the UN, but NATO - screaming and kicking, in to try to fix the problem. On the other hand we are still blamed for doing nothing about the Ruandan genocide. Of course, the Africans, Europeans, Asians, and the UN also did nothing. And now, the Sudan ...
Right now, the EU - well, primarily the Germans and French - complain about US imperialism. They want to set up a common EU military force as a counterweight to the US forces. But the thought of the US pulling its remaining forces out of Europe sends shockwaves throughout the European governments. I believe that this is called "hypocracy".
Timbo is correct about one thing though. Muslims, as a group, do not feel gratitude toward infidels. They feel "entitled".
I have seen the Arab Muslim in his native environment, and frequently, it is not a pretty sight.
A brief bio to short circuit accusations of racism and bigotry: US Army, retired; 3/4's of career spent overseas, 12 years in Germany, the rest in the Middle East - Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. I have also worked with Japanese, South Koreans, and Chinese (Singapore). And I have been working in Saudi Arabia for the past six years.
Timbo wrote:
"If the US had left Gulf War I to Syria, Egypt, Qatar and Saudi (who were more than capable) would 9/11 have happened? If troops had not been stationed in Saudi, would 9/11 have happened?"
If the US had left Gulf War I to the Arabs, Kuwait would still be the 26th (?) province of Iraq. Syria is Baathist. Egypt is too far away. Qatar is too small. The Saudi military is primarily a jobs program for young Saudi males. It is not an effective military organization. Besides, Saudis do not like Kuwaitis. Nothing except hand wringing and prayers to Allah that Saddam stop at Kuwait would have happened.
Bin Ladin used US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia as an excuse. His original goal was to replace the Saudi monarchy with a "true" Islamic government with himself at the head. Without US troops in Saudi Arabia, he would have found another excuse. Unless, of course, the Iraqis invaded.
The world's policeman. Hmmm. Just after I think that is a role that we should give up, I think, "If not us, who?". I believe that this is called "ambivalence".
The Europeans let the Balkan problem fester in their own backyard for several years until the US, in a "unilateral" effort, dragged NATO - not the Europeans, not the UN, but NATO - screaming and kicking, in to try to fix the problem. On the other hand we are still blamed for doing nothing about the Ruandan genocide. Of course, the Africans, Europeans, Asians, and the UN also did nothing. And now, the Sudan ...
Right now, the EU - well, primarily the Germans and French - complain about US imperialism. They want to set up a common EU military force as a counterweight to the US forces. But the thought of the US pulling its remaining forces out of Europe sends shockwaves throughout the European governments. I believe that this is called "hypocracy".
Timbo is correct about one thing though. Muslims, as a group, do not feel gratitude toward infidels. They feel "entitled".
I have seen the Arab Muslim in his native environment, and frequently, it is not a pretty sight.
A brief bio to short circuit accusations of racism and bigotry: US Army, retired; 3/4's of career spent overseas, 12 years in Germany, the rest in the Middle East - Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. I have also worked with Japanese, South Koreans, and Chinese (Singapore). And I have been working in Saudi Arabia for the past six years.
Jay,
I completely respect your opinion and background, but you speak as if Egypt would have had to have made an amphibious landing on Kuwait itself, whereas their forces merely had to make their way to the nearest Saudi sea port, which logistically would not have been that great a problem. The USA could have sent supplies and equipment and slipped each combatant a few billion dollars for their trouble. I really can't see how these combined Arab forces could have failed. As it was, the whole war looked like a turkey shoot anyway. I knew a guy whose job was to clean up the roads out of Kuwait into Iraq, bury the bodies and so-forth. He described a one-sided massacre, and showed me many disturbing private photos to prove his point.
You say that this hapless army could have withstood the strongest half of the Arab world, backed by Western aid? I'm surprised. And what if the West had only supplied air support?
As far as the British forces were concerned, they took more casualties from the Americans than the Iraqis.
Dear "Timbo":
"I'm not happy with the word "attack" I think this is a tad touchy. I would prefer
"constructive criticism"."
Fine. Constructive criticism.
"That nest of vipers, the new Iraqi parliament met for the first time on Wednesday. A big event. Did you mention it? You mentioned a lot of VERY obscure things - but did you mention that? Today? Yesterday? No."
I didn't judge it to be a big event. The first meeting of a group? That's a ribbon cutting. Call me when they do something. I mentioned very obscure things by contrast? I don't think so. We clearly differ on how important this was, but your assumption that my choice was politically motivated is not dictated by any objective fact and is, in fact, false.
"Oh, you posted 6 items that can't be judged as pro-American. You call this being balanced, compared to 600 European bashing articles? No, the word I use is tokenism."
That's funny. The 6 wasn't meant to be an all-inclusive list, and this shows you really haven't been reading. But yes, Europe is worse off than America. Europe is just about gone. Bat Ye'or thinks it's all over for Europe, but not for America. I like to hope that things may turn around in Europe, but anyway, things aren't nearly that bad in America. Does thinking that make me "right-wing"? Call me whatever you want.
"So, you're a conservative pro-American forum. Just admit it; it's nothing to be ashamed of."
I would admit it if it were true. This is an anti-jihad site of a growing anti-jihad organization. Anyone who wants to resist the jihad is welcome. It is only the opponents of such resistance who call me "conservative." As for pro-American, sure -- but if you think that means pro-Bush in every respect, you clearly haven't been reading. To call someone "conservative" or "right-wing" is a signal to try to ensure that liberals will not listen to that person; the New York Times did this to Bat Ye'or recently, and it was absurd. The only thing right-wing about her is that she opposes the jihad and the Islamization of Europe. If that is ipso facto right wing, so be it.
"You have debated with better men than me? Good on ya! You probably have. Give that man a cigar! (preferably not Cuban). And what do you know about me? Do you know that I am published author? Does this matter? Not really... only the content of my argument matters – and I wish to God that I was discussing something trivial."
Indeed, your being published doesn't matter, so why do you mention it? You can't have the credit without stating your name. If you want that, say who you are. Otherwise, make your assertions strong enough to stand on their own merits. You haven't done so yet.
But no, I am not asking you to go away. All manner of people have posted here. Fire away. "Comments are unmoderated" means I don't even read most of them. As long as you keep the language clean and avoid calls for genocide or political assassination, have at it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Hugh:
You must get tired of hearing this, but you are truly awesome.
Again it is insisted that American foreign policy explains, if not totally, at least in major part, the current Islamic fury and menace. No matter how many times this highly imaginative story has been put to bed, it keeps getting up in the middle of the night and reappears in its Doctor Dentons at the foot of the stairs, in all its childish innocence, while the grownups are trying to finish their conversation uninterrupted.
Rarely do you crack me up, but this one was priceless.
Timbo:
A minor point, but if I'm not mistaken, you are repeating the tired mantra of the US as "the world's biggest polluter" when several third world countries have that dubious distinction. Others have posted the stats here backing that up.
CGW~ No, no... Timbo's right. And I think we should go ahead full force with the Kyoto treaty. Really. I mean, once the US is reduced to a third-world nation and everyone in it finally fits the Left's ideal of 'Equal,' Then those other countries will, without any doubt, be the biggest polluters, and the Left can start knocking them.
And when 2100 comes around and the Kyoto treaty has managed to bring down the potential temperature rise by 1/2 of one degree, we'll all feel better about it.
And hey, the US will no longer 'Militant.'
CGW~ sorry, I got one point wrong. Even after the US is reduced to the lowest denomination of 'equal,' there will still be the Elite who put them there in the first place. Unless the US is, by that time, an extension of the Eurabian Caliphate, precisely because it was reduced to a less 'Militant' nation. Timbo sounds like he is up there with us in age, so I have to guess his kids or grandkids will get to see all of this happen-
Not.
Timbo said: "your nation lost it's way in the late 1950's".
Translation-- When the U.S.A. decided to resist the Soviets pre-emptively and pro-actively and not allow them a free hand, and overwhelmingly rejected communism domestically, we began on the road to fascism.
+++
The way I see it, Woodrow Wilson began the downward spiral by entering into the European conflict.
FDR(a leftist fool) caused further damage. The Counter-cultural revolution turned reality on it's head, and advocated anti-reality that has been accepted by large segments of society.
++
Timbo ignores the support of the communists/Soviets by many in Western Europe during the Cold-war. If he thinks the Soviets could not or would not have over-run Europe if the Americans were not present he is dreaming.
If not for American counter-measures Europe would have been dominated by the Soviets in short order.
+++
Don't like the world we live in today?? Look back to the October Revolution. They are the source. They are the ones whose primary objective was sticking their nose in other people's business. Most everything done after then was a reaction/resistance to them.
Hugh,
Yes! Co-dependent no more!! Brilliant piece. Muslims in third world countries really need to be taught to read. Their illiteracy is very much at the heart of their sustained ignorance. Those who rely upon blind memorization as a substitute for learning and thought have no way to verify. Information is power. The withholding of information is corruption of power. Islam routinely withholds information. Planned obsoleteness?
As for Timbo, it's been interesting watching you unravel as the JW posts challenge you to truth. You have gone all the way from the USA as 'decent' to a moment later as 'diplomatic rabid midget' (badly put, but I do get your intended meaning nonetheless) all the way to 'we lost our way in the 50's'. You've established your disrespect and intolerance for the USA so convincingly that I have no questions about that .. however, a few points (at least) do beg questions and comments:
Bush's 'mantra' "You're either with us or against us" was a war cry. When the sounds of your own girlish laughter stop ringing in your ears, perhaps you'll better appreciate his succinctness.
You are a "published writer". Oh, so that means you're not an unpublished writer. So what?
"The Communists were not misogynistic". Oh yeah? Apparently you've never seen a maternity ward in a Russian hospital.
Kind of insanely, Timbo, you ask the readers of JW to take OBL's explanations of his evil enactments as word. I suppose, therefore, we should revise history right now in order to take Hitler's explanations of his evil into fuller account as well. When would you suggest we begin to do that learned task? Perhaps, as a 'published writer', you could start the process. After all, everyone's point of view is of exactly the same moral and social worth, right Timbo?
So many other's have responded so thoughtfully to your points and attacks that I'll just say this to complete my response:
America was attacked. We are defending ourselves in a well conceived and 'well enough' executed war. This war is being conducted on more than one battleground. Our actions do not have to be perfect in order to be correct. The results are unfolding. Keep watching. Keep learning Timbo.
Arguably, its the other way around... jihad causes poverty.
F'r'instance, look at what the infitada has wrought in Palestine. Relative prosperity laid low as a direct and forseeable result of the Palestinian efforts against the Israelis.
As for Timbo and his ignorance vis-a-vis Stalin, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Stalin was a murderous pig, a jumped-up peasent with a taste for blood. If Stalin's purges and the "famine" in the Ukraine are more than enough evidence of that.
Timbo~
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/cliffordmay/cm20050317.shtml
Read it and Learn.
Yes, that’s right…. Consume, consume, consume – don’t think, just consume. Try thinking for a while, if the USA were to convert to cleaner sources of energy (not petroleum) this would indeed cause a slowdown of the US economy – a shrinkage of at least 10%. So you would earn 10% less every month. Is that really such a big price for not creating global warming and to stop making Arab Muslims rich? So what’s the problem with it? You would buy less plastic crap you don’t need, made in the “workers paradise” of China. Or you would do without Nike trainers manufactured by wage slaves in the Third World. You would run a smaller car. You would save up a full year for a good holiday instead of ten months. So what? You call that a sacrifice?
I always find it strange that Americans will not blink an eyelid when their troops go off to fight pointless wars in places they had never even previously heard of, but if a president were to announce that he were going to sacrifice half that cost on a clean environment, there would be a national uproar!
It’s difficult talking to the American right, because they have some very distorted concepts. Firstly, when they find out you’re a leftie, they demand that you to become an apologist for Mao or Stalin - as if I would expect you to apologise for Mussolini! Secondly, they think that opposition to the US is all about envy. Firstly, the city where I live, in terms of living standards, ranks well above any major US city – I have nothing to be envious of. As far as national greatness, well my parents were British, and if that wasn’t a great country I don’t know what was. In the UK I had my own business, because society told me that that was what would make me happy. I got to the point where I was driving a new S Class Mercedes and earning about two thousand US$ a week – then I realised that it was all meaningless materialistic bullshit, that my success was purposeless and it meant nothing, so I left it all and went to the Indian Himalayas for a very long time to try and make some sense of life, which I decided could not revolve around a desk and an S Class Mercedes. I am not recommending this, nor boasting. My point is, simply, that (from my experience) materialism is not the answer; stop being obsessed about your economy and try and step outside the square you live in and see the bigger picture. Yes, certain left wing undertakings slow down economic growth – but as long as it’s done in moderation and for the right reasons, I personally support it. Bankrupting Fascist Islam certainly sounds like a good reason to me.
You call yourself free but you’re as brainwashed as one of chairman Mao’s Red Guards. Do you think the Bush dynasty, a family built on oil wealth, is going to free you from Arab dependence? How do you think OBL’s family got rich? I’ll tell you – off the back of the American workers.
Cthulhu - Stalin was a murdering tyrant. When did I say otherwise?
As far as him taking care of Hitler, well it's an historical fact, I can't change that.
The US saved Europe (or most of it) from Communism not Nazism. Without US help, the Soviet Army would have taken all of Germany by 1947, and if the British had been lucky they might have been able to claw back France and the low countries by this time.
For this US help we should be grateful. This does not change the fact that if Hitler had not declared war on the US your forces would have never gone to Europe anyway.
Some of us, whom you take to be both the beneficiaries and the defenders of Privilege, are nothing of the sort. We post here because we regard Islam as a menace. It is the most successful imperialism, because it causes people to forget who they were, and to want to become exactly like their conquerors, and is also the most successful collectivist, quasi-fascist, mass movement in history. Islam threatens our wellbeing. Islam threatens our lives. Islam threatens our abilty to think and to express ourselves freely. The presence of those who take Islam to heart as True Believers makes our own lives much less pleasant, much more expensive, and much more dangerous than those lives would otherwise be. We don't like that. It offends us. We wish to persuade others that they should not like it either, and they should be offended, and that we should all do something about it -- whatever we can.
Never having owned an S class Mercedes or anything remotely like it, and having no Rat Race experience and no concomitant Sense of Emptiness and Is-This-All-There-Is feeling, a kind of dynamic dealmaker's version of post-coital letdown, I never had to make up for all that by going on a Spiritual Search in the high Himalayas. A voyage autour de ma chambre, with plenty of reading rest-stops, will do just fine. As for lifting the level of endomorphins, that's where those YMCA treadmills can come in handy.
However, that consumption of crap here (and elsewhere) has become a big problem. And the Internal Combustion Engine must be brought to heel, somehow. So I'll second some of your emotions. Of the Seven Deadlies, at the moment the worst seems to be that of Greed. And Greed is not only creating mountains of junk, but also leading to betrayals within the West, of the West itself. Greed explains the army of quislings, hirelings of the Arabs, who have been willing to offer their services as diplomats, journalists, government officials, businessmen, and of course professors at "Centers of Muslim-Christian Thisandthat" who, in exchange for being allowed to pocket and thereby "recycle" petrodollars, right into their bank accounts, serve as apologists for Islam, and apparently will continue to serve, possibly until it is too late to prevent the islamization of Western Europe. Greed also explains the willingness of Europeans to dissolve their national identities, histories, literatures, even languages, all for a mess of pottage -- to attain economies of scale in manufacturing, and to create that appetizing thing which no self-respecting country or set of countries feels it can do without nowadays (it can do without real education, without art, without all sorts of things, but not without this)-- the Big Market. And that seems to be the E.U.'s reason for being.
How noble it all is. How stirring.
Timbo~ please do show us which one of YOUR favored countries is NOT consuming.
Then show us which one of YOUR favored countries is doing a BETTER job of spreading the results of that cosunmption (Food, technology, medical) around the world.
And which country is doing the most in the way of environmentally friendly technology? I don't know if the US is #1 on the list but sure as hell they are close to it. And have the most means to spread that technology around.
You go into a lot of hysterics about 'brainwashing' but we don't get much of substance from you.
Anyway, enough of this. This site is dedicated to following and reporting on the Jihad and that is why We are here, ideaology be damned. These massive posts blaming the Victims for supposedly bringing it on themselves, only serve to tie up bandwidth. The 'Lets make the Entire world poor so we can all be 'equal' ('cept for us Elite)' crowd will just have to put things on hold until:
1. Islam goes thru a Reformation
or
2. Islam joins the Thuggee, the Nazis and, with luck, the Communists, on the dustbin of History.
Well, I am a little late on this discussion, but I would like to comment on the article if that is ok with everyone. Does poverty breed Jihadism. Do we even need to ask this question? Does poverty breed crime of any kind anywhere in the world? I do realize that the religion of Islam backs a lot of crimes againsts the unbeleivers or those who have the nerve to fight back when Muslims attack, but of course poverty has a huge role to play in it. Who is going to be more likely to risk prison or death: a poor person who has nothing to lose or a person living comfortably who has a lot to lose? I think that this is a no-brainer.
I would ad before my next comment that I am a Zionist, but I believe in reason so I try to see the other side. Take the Arabs/Muslims in the held territories of Israel for example(an extereme example have you, because most Muslims do not live in even remotly similar conditions as the "Palestinians" do), what are they going to do with their lives? They are stuck, especially in the West Bank. They can't leave their homes for days at a time, they can't import or export, and can only trade when Israel lets a few of them in. Their schools are underfunded, and therefor get their funding from Saudi nuts, they don't have water for the hottest monthes of the year, and the can't even leave to go anywhere, even to go into their own actual country of Jordan.
Now I blame this even more on the Arab countries who will not let their own brothers into their lands for the sake of keeping alive the hatred for the Jews, and the diminishing hope that Israel will be driven into the sea. They would rather let them suffer and die for someone elses cause, better them than the wealthy elites with their 100 wives and 50 palaces. Obviously an exageration, except on "The Island". Anyway my point drawn out is that poverty plays a huge role in people being willing to commit acts of crime against others, especially when they have no hope except to die in Jihad and attain their only means to salvation that exists in Islam.
Posted by: Timbo at March 17, 2005 10:17 PM
ROTFL!! ROTFL!!
Little timbo?? has a steal computer??? ROTFL!!!
Little timbo has no heat for his house??? ROTFL!!!
Little tombo has never even done a pop search to find out the Europeans use more than the USA!! ROTFL!!
Oh Yes little timbo they use plaskic dippers in Europe!!
Little tombo have you even been to Europe?? Lots of plasktic water bottles??
Now the way that Europe make it look like the USA uses so much is because the count the whole 50 states but when the count their own they divide the states?? No little timbo Europe uses much more than the USA does!!!
Italy alone has a pop of 60 million but half the land space of TX now all them people have to be feed and clothed and TX only has 20 million people!!!
NO LITTLE TIMBO ROTFL!!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER FIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC ETRRORIST AND ALL WHO WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WORLDS EYES TO THEIR EVIL LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
PS
Little timbo are you a red dipper doper baby??