This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
How Islamic Extremism Was Born
Submitted by Ben Norton via Salon.com,
President Ronald Reagan gestures while talking to Burhaneddin Rabbani, a spokesman for the Afghan Resistance Alliance, at the White House in Washington, June 16, 1986. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
History takes no prisoners. It shows, with absolute lucidity, that the Islamic extremism ravaging the world today was borne out of the Western foreign policy of yesteryear.
Gore Vidal famously referred to the USA as the United States of Amnesia. The late Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai put it a little more delicately, quipping, “One of the delightful things about Americans is that they have absolutely no historical memory.”
In order to understand the rise of militant Salafi groups like ISIS and al-Qaida; in order to wrap our minds around their heinous, abominable attacks on civilians in the U.S., France, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Nigeria, Turkey, Yemen, Afghanistan and many, many more countries, we must rekindle this historical memory.
Where did violent Islamic extremism come from? In the wake of the horrific Paris attacks on Friday, November the 13, this is the question no one is asking — yet it is the most important one of all. If one doesn’t know why a problem emerged, if one cannot find its root, one will never be able to solve and uproot it.
Where did militant Salafi groups like ISIS and al-Qaida come from? The answer is not as complicated as many make it out to be — but, to understand, we must delve into the history of the Cold War, the historical period lied about in the West perhaps more than any other.
How the West cultivated Osama bin Laden
We needn’t reach back far into history, just a few decades.
A much-circulated photo of an article published in British newspaper the Independent in 1993 exemplifies the West’s twisted hypocrisy. Titled “Anti-Soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace,” it features a large photo of Osama bin Laden, who, at the time, was a close Western ally.
The newspaper noted that bin Laden organized a militia of thousands of foreign fighters from throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and “supported them with weapons and his own construction equipment” in their fight against the USSR in the 1980s. “We beat the Soviet Union,” bin Laden boasted.
The mujahedin, this international Islamic extremist militia organized and headed by bin Laden, is what eventually morphed into both al-Qaida and the Taliban.
“When the history of the Afghan resistance movement is written,” the Independent wrote, “Mr Bin Laden’s own contribution to the mujahedin… may turn out to be a turning point in the recent history of militant fundamentalism.”
Portraying bin Laden in a positive light, less than eight years before he would help mastermind the largest terrorist attack on American soil in decades, the British publication claimed that the “Saudi businessman who recruited mujahedin now uses them for large-scale building projects in Sudan.” In reality, bin Laden was setting the stages for what would be become al-Qaida.
Unheeded warnings
In Greek mythology, Cassandra was blessed with the power of prophecy, but cursed in that no one would ever heed her warnings. Eqbal Ahmad, the late political scientist, historian and expert in the study of terrorism, was a modern-day Cassandra.
In a speech at the University of Colorado, Boulder in October 1998, Ahmad warnedthat the U.S. policy in Afghanistan would backfire:
“In Islamic history, jihad as an international violent phenomenon had disappeared in the last 400 years, for all practical purposes. It was revived suddenly with American help in the 1980s. When the Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan, Zia ul-Haq, the [U.S.-backed] military dictator of Pakistan, which borders on Afghanistan, saw an opportunity and launched a jihad there against godless communism. The U.S. saw a God-sent opportunity to mobilize one billion Muslims against what Reagan called the ‘Evil Empire.’
“Money started pouring in. CIA agents starting going all over the Muslim world recruiting people to fight in the great jihad. Bin Laden was one of the early prize recruits. He was not only an Arab. He was also a Saudi. He was not only a Saudi. He was also a multimillionaire, willing to put his own money into the matter. Bin Laden went around recruiting people for the jihad against communism.
“I first met him in 1986. He was recommended to me by an American official of whom I do not know whether he was or was not an agent. I was talking to him and said, ‘Who are the Arabs here who would be very interesting?’ By here I meant in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said, ‘You must meet Osama.’ I went to see Osama. There he was, rich, bringing in recruits from Algeria, from Sudan, from Egypt, just like Sheikh Abdul Rahman. This fellow was an ally. He remained an ally.
“He turns at a particular moment. In 1990, the U.S. goes into Saudi Arabia with forces. Saudi Arabia is the holy place of Muslims, Mecca, and Medina. There had never been foreign troops there. In 1990, during the Gulf War, they went in, in the name of helping Saudi Arabia defeat Saddam Hussein. Osama Bin Laden remained quiet.
“Saddam was defeated, but the American troops stayed on in the land of the Ka’aba [the most sacred site of Islam, in Mecca], foreign troops. He wrote letter after letter saying, ‘Why are you here? Get out! You came to help but you have stayed on.’ Finally he started a jihad against the other occupiers. His mission is to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia. His earlier mission was to get Russian troops out of Afghanistan.”
For bin Laden, Ahmad added, “America has broken its word. The loyal friend has betrayed. The one to whom you swore blood loyalty has betrayed you.”
“They’re going to go for you. They’re going to do a lot more,” Ahmad warned, three years before the 9/11 attacks. “These are the chickens of the Afghanistan war coming home to roost.”
We now know that Ahmad was right. But, like Cassandra, the powerful ignored his sagacious admonition, and suffered the horrific consequences.
Extremist “freedom fighters”
In the 1950s and ’60s, Afghanistan was a somewhat secular country in which women were granted relatively equal rights. What turned Afghanistan into the hotbed for extremism it is today? Decades of Western meddling.
Throughout the 1980s, the U.S. government supported and armed bin Laden and his mujahedin in Afghanistan, in their fight against the Soviet Union. President RonaldReagan famously met with the mujahedin in the Oval Office in 1983. “To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom,” Reagan declared.
Those “freedom fighters” are the forefathers of ISIS and al-Qaida. When the last Soviet troops were withdrawn in 1989, the mujahedin did not simply leave; a civil war of sorts followed, with various Islamist militant groups fighting for control in the power vacuum. The Taliban came out on top, and established a medieval theocratic regime to replace the former “godless” socialist government.
There are extremists in every religion, but they tend to be few in number, weak and isolated. Salafism, in its modern militarized form, has its origins in the 1920s, and even before. For decades, this movement remained weak and isolated. Yet, in the 1970s and ’80s, Western capitalist governments, particularly the U.S., came up with a new Cold War strategy: supporting these fringe Islamic extremist groups as a bulwark against socialism.
The U.S. was by no means the only one to pursue such a strategy. Echoing the U.S. policy in Afghanistan, Israel in fact supported Hamas — now its sworn arch-enemy — when the Islamist group was first forming in the 1980s. Israel backed Hamas’ militant founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in order to undermine the secular socialist resistance of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” a former Israeli government official told the Wall Street Journal in a 2009 article titled “How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas.”
This Cold War strategy ended up being successful: After the fall of the USSR, the secular socialist groups that dominated the resistance movements of the Middle East were replaced by Islamic extremists ones that had previously been supported by the West.
It is not a coincidence that most of the secular countries in the history of the Middle East have been socialist of some sort. In contrast, the most reactionary countries — the countries where women are not granted equal rights and where the rule of law is based on Sharia — have frequently tended to be close Western allies. Why? The West was much, much more interested in preserving capitalism than it was in allowing secularism, gender equality and relative economic equality to flourish under socialism.
Orientalist posturing
Many pundits, including liberals, have argued that the Middle East, North Africa and Muslim-majority parts of South Asia are presently going through their parallel to the West’s Dark Age, a bloody period of religious extremism. They blame the rise of extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida on Islam itself, or on the Middle East’s supposedly “backward” culture, yet conveniently gloss over their own countries’ sordid histories and policies.
There is much more than a tinge of racism in this orientalist idea that, for some reason, Muslims in the Middle East are centuries behind the englightened Christian West. This ludicrous claim does not stand up to even the most superficial historical scrutiny.
For one, never mentioned is the fact that, only decades ago, most Middle Eastern countries were Western colonies. Their civilian populations were terrorized and brutalized by Western colonial powers.
And, again, what were the most secular and modern governments in the history of the Middle East? It was almost always the Soviet-aligned or non-aligned leftist governments that were either enemies of the West or non-allies in the Cold War.
Regardless of the critiques of these governments’ many problems, which is a separate issue, the reality is the Middle East was significantly more progressive and secular during the height of the Cold War than it is today. That’s not a coincidence. The U.S. and its allies destroyed secularism as part of their larger Cold War strategy.
The Cold War bites back
This Cold War strategy continues to bite back today, and hard. Because of this policy, we have now ended up with capitalist dystopias like those in Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the UAE — filthy rich oil states where businessmen are drowning in money while the migrant modern-day slaves upon which their economies are built die in droves, and theocratic monarchies imprison or even behead anyone who challenges the regime.
The Gulf states remain some of the most reactionary and extremist countries on the planet, and they happen to be close Western allies. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is the fountainhead of militant Sunni Islamism — and yet the Obama administration has done more than $100 billion in arms deals with the Saudi monarchy in just five years. In fact, less than three days after the Paris attacks, the U.S. sold another $1.3 billion of bombs to Saudi Arabia — bombs it will likely use to drop on Yemen, where human rights organizations say it is committing egregious war crimes, and where the chaos created by the Saudi-led coalition is helping al-Qaida and ISIS expand into Yemen.
Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham has observed that modern Sunni extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida are “a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money, and Saudi organizational support.” Government cables leaked by WikiLeaks demonstrate that the U.S. is well aware that al-Qaida and other Salafi groups are supported by rich Saudis.
Let us not forget that Osama bin Laden was a millionaire businessman from a fabulously wealthy and prominent Saudi family with close ties to the kingdom’s royalty. He used that wealth to finance an international network of Islamic extremists that coalesced into al-Qaida.
This doesn’t mean that the Saudi monarchy is pulling the strings above ISIS — which is now its enemy — but rather that its global proselytizing and funding of Wahhabi groups and institutions made these once fringe extremist groups much stronger and more mainstream.
Ideologies are not devoid from material reality. Yes, there are extremists in every religion, but why do they not have the same power in other faiths? There is no such thing as an ideology independent of the material conditions and social forces that assert that ideology materially — that is to say, politically — in reality. Islamic extremism was violently imposed upon the Middle East through a mixture of imperial machinations and individual radicalization under tyranny and extreme poverty.
Creating your enemies
Western imperialism has a tendency to create its own enemies.
Up until the 1990 Gulf War, throughout the Iran-Iraq War that consumed the 1980s, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein — the very same dictator it would violently depose in 2003. Declassified CIA files show how the U.S. government helped Hussein when he was unleashing chemical weapons on Iranian civilians. The U.K. government allowed Hussein’s regime to create chemical weapons using agents that were sold to Iraq by British corporations. These Western-provided weapons were also used in Hussein’s campaign of genocide against the Kurds.
Fast-forwarding two decades later, it is now widely acknowledged that the illegal U.S.-led war in Iraq — a catastrophic occupation that led to the deaths of at least 1 million people — destabilized the entire Middle East, creating the extreme conditions in which militant groups like al-Qaida spread like wildfire, eventually leading to the emergence of ISIS. The former head of intelligence for the U.S. Central Command and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn,agrees. U.S. policies in Iraq “absolutely” strengthened Salafi militant groups like al-Qaida, Lt. Gen. Flynn conceded. “We definitely put fuel on a fire,” he lamented.
New York Rep. Chuck Schumer remarked in 1991 that Saddam Hussein was “created in the White House laboratory with a collection of government programs, banks, and private companies.”
Saddam Hussein was the first Frankenstein’s monster U.S. policy created in Iraq, al-Qaida was the second, and now ISIS is the third.
Blaming Islam is projection
The pundits in the West blaming Islam for the rise of extremism are projecting their own countries’ crimes onto the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.
The kinds of people who blame Islam and Muslims for the spread of extremism are the kinds of people who have utmost faith in Western empire. Even if they admit that it “sometimes” engages in problematic behavior, they, deep-down, believe Western empire to be fundamentally rooted in good will, in humanitarianism, in progress, in the proselytizing of civilization.
This is the same logic that justified genocidal European colonialism, Western expansionism and Manifest Destiny, and the White Man’s Burden. And it is this same logic that promotes militarist policies and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee bigotries in response to Islamist militants’ attacks — only serving to further fuel the fire of extremism.
These same pundits, the ones who blame Islam for the rise of ISIS and who have utmost faith in the putative good will of Western empire, would have wholeheartedly supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s; these same pundits would have dubbed the father of al-Qaida a “freedom fighter” in his heroic battle against the evil Soviet Union.
In the aforementioned speech, Ahmad articulated five kinds of terrorism. He lamented, however, that of these types, the focus in the media and the political system is almost always on just one: “political terror of the private group, oppositional terror” — which he points out is “the least important in terms of cost to human lives and human property.” “The highest cost is state terror,” Ahmad explained. He roughly estimated that the ratio of people killed by state terror versus those killed by individual acts of terror is, conservatively, 100,000 to one.
If we truly want to end the abominable acts of violence perpetrated by extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida, we should take to heart the simple yet profoundcounsel of Noam Chomsky, another modern-day Cassandra: “Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.”
»
- 2093 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
There is no extremism. There is only Islam. http://imgur.com/gallery/aeIGCJv
Not to say that the contents of this article are incorrect, of course. This is the source for the MODERN elements leading Islam in its third stage. But Islam itself is the source of the behavior.
Keep hiding your head in the sand, TS. That always works well.
And add this to your collection of violent religious imagery:
Matthew 1034Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
This article doesn't even mention Madeliene Albrights half million dead Iraq women and children from sanctions, more for the second Gulf war, bombed wedding parties all over the place and Libya's complete takedown. There is even more fuel on the fire than he suggests here, just flat out pissed off people.
Oh, no. Only evil Muslims fight back when you kill hundreds of thousands of their children. It's in the nature of Islam. Christian like it when you hurt their children. That's why American law demands that young girls must shower with grown men at school.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/teenagers-protest-a-transgender-stu...
If only Muslims could be more like us.
Remind me which Christian countries bury women up to their heads and stone them to death for being raped.
Remind which elected government killed those half million kids and then bragged about it.
That would be FDR and Truman, but the Germans and Japanese don't seem to be suicide bombing the shit out of everyone.
Oh, and Reagan also fucked with Central & South America and you don't see Catholic or even Communist extremists suicide bombing the shit out of people.
Seems to be pretty common for islamists though.
Edit: With the exception of the Kurds, the only "moderate" muslims on earth. When Bush 1 screwed them, they didn't rail at the US and shout "death to America", they took the only thing they had, a no-fly zone, and with only that little bit of help from the US, built a vibrant economy and peaceful state. They didn't spend all their time soliciting donations in order to suicide bomb the US, Iraq, or anywhere else. Even when their "terrorist" (designated) militias attack Turkey, they attack the Turkish military and police.
If someone murdered your kids you'd be OK with it then?
No, but if I were in Afghanistan, I would probably want to overthrow the Taliban government for allowing bin Laden to plan his attack there. Conspiracy theories aside, would the US have attacked if bin Laden hadn't destroyed the Twin Towers?
Bin Laden is Saudi. Nineteen of the hijackers were Saudi. US presidents continue to kiss and bow before Saudi kings to this very day.
Bush kisses a Saudi
http://www.wbdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Bush-Kiss-300x249.jpg
So naturally you give the Saudis a pass and focus exclusively on US involvement? As a reminder, the Saudi government are Kings. They have no elected government. They buy their influence in the US. You know, using money to buy power, like you say wouldn't happen if we didn't have elected government.
Yes, LTER. I am giving the Saudis a pass when I point out their involvement in the September 11 attacks.
So you agree that the Sauds were at least partially responsible for 9/11. As a reminder, Saudi Arabia is the home of Mecca. The place where Muslims go to worship their God. Muslims congretate there in the millions and trample each other to get close to the big rectangular thing. Great religion. And do you further agree that the Sauds use their money to hold power despite the lack of elected government, and that in fact they were able to kill a bunch of Americans and get away with it because they have a large amount of a valuable commodity to sell?
Let's be honest. Islam sucks total ass. Its member are knuckle-draggers. The religion is a pox on humanity.
Islamic extremism started in the year 700 or so with the islamic invasion of Spain. It continued with battles near Tours, Vienna, and Venice. For a long time, the Ottoman empire and raids from North Africa were a scourge on Europe. The US sent one of its first naval expedition to deal with North African agression against its merchant ships.
We did not start this war and we did not want it. And we are most certainly not the agressors in a conflicts that's already well over a millennium old.
Your historical account is correct. I don't care to get sucked into the queer debate some people like to get into, this article is gaytarded on so many levels, but its infantile America vs Russia meme is about as valid as the Red Team/Blue Team bullshit difference.
America, Europe, Asia, Russia...all should table whatever disagreements they might have on all other issues and unite to end Islam. This murderous twisted pedophile cult is incompatible with any definition of civilized existence, period. Debate whatever else you like but there is no credible debate to be had regarding any merits of that cult.
We need more Charles the Hammer and fewer Quislings.
But I doubt such a reasoned approach is coming, so pointless verbal masterbations over infantile distractions will continue.
Even when stumbling upon some accuracy, they cannot help but lard on the falsehoods. I would expect nothing less from Salon*, who gave us the clock-boy headline "Is Ahmed Mohammed The Muslim Hero We've Been Waiting For?"
/*nothing but a bunch of Christian and West baiting Critical Theorists
Shame on ZH for posting anything from such a rag.
But standards have been slipping...
Yeah yeah..."shores of Tripoli", we get it, but you might want to take a look at the behavior of your precious Europe during the same time period and reflect on whether or not you're an 'aggressor'. Then you can look at your long history of colonial conquest. Then you can look at your persistent attempts to destabilize foreign governments. Then you can look at the funding ZBig and Carter gave the Mujahideen in the 70s.
You're not innocent and you don't have a leg to stand on.
Who is this YOU you're talking to dipshit? Be specific and lay the accusations accordingly. None of this "sins of the Fathers" either, because you are not the judge of anyone. If you were to be judged and punished based upon your ancestral line, how would you fare? I am sure your internet honesty is impeccable.
But do they have decorations on their StarBucks cups?
Well at least you have the Duggars and Phelps families to point to with pride.
Again, who are you talking to? Would it be relevent for me to post that Liveleak video of the Muslims taking turns humping a goat? I can do it you know... maybe your cousins?
I agree that the House of Saud is responsible for terrible crimes but I don't believe that that guilt attaches to some Muslim baker in Tehran or some Muslim dry cleaner in Michigan. Do you?
Rather than blaming every Muslim on planet Earth for the crimes oi some Islamic radicals and leaving it at that wouldn't it make more sense to tell your elected representatives in whom you place great trust to stop supporting Islamic radicals just as the article proposes?
Well, apparently muslims feel it's totally ok to blame random citizens in Paris and kill them indiscriminately. Why don't you apply the same reasoning to both parties?
Some Muslims believe that, not all Muslims. Many Muslims condemned the Paris attacks.
in whom you place great trust to stop supporting Islamic radicals just as the article proposes?
You misspelled importing...
Indeed, and we have all seen the picture of Obama bending over kissing the ring.
I just note how the salon.com douchebag ignored 1300 years of Muslim slaughter in the name of Jihad. How convenient.
Do you agree with the authors assertion that the US should not fund Islamic radicals? It's an easy question.
Nice deflection, address my point or piss off.
Too late....featherbed is calling.
Pissant troll.
I for one am willing to state here and now that the United States of America should not use my tax money to support militants, radicals and terrorists. It's a shame that so many others here hate Islam so much that they refuse to discuss cutting support for Islamic radicals.
That's a no brainer. But here's the bigger problem you ignore. Places like Saudi Arabia that have no elected government use oil money to directly support terrorists. Much of the shitstorm in the middle east is the result of Saudi interests. They want to control Syria, they hate Iran, etc. Yes, we have a government that is happy to jump into this fight for the interests of the oligarchs and MIC, but guys like you can't see the most obvous culprit in all of it.
If the US supports Islamic radicals and the Saudis support Islamic radicals then doesn't it make sense that as an American the first and easiest step would be to get your own elected representatives to stop funding Islamic radicals first and then proceed from there?
They want to control Syria, they hate Iran, etc.
But those nations have majority Muslim populations and you don't like Muslims. If you make life easier for some Muslims whom you consider to be evil by interfering with other Muslim who you consider to be evil what have you gained except some extra profits for "defense" contractors?
What part of me agreeing with you (and making the point independently over and over) that US representatives who support these regimes need to be replaced don't you understand? Or is it just easier to deal with your straw men instead of explaining why you are so pro-Islam in this thread?
I realize you tend to think in black and white terms, but you can be against more than one thing at once, you know.
As an atheist I'm not pro-Islam. I simply don't think that all Muslims are responsible for the crimes of a particular subset of Muslims as you do. You finally agreed that the US should not support Islamic radicals but you continue to insist that the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not radicals are some sort of threat to you.
They shouldn't be able to walk into my town until I can walk into Mecca. The West and Islam are fundamentally incompatible, which only manifests once critical mass is achieved. The mythological "moderate" Muslim is irrelevent, as they will never stand up to the expanding Caliphate on that day. So yes, they are threats, you are correct.
Until I can roam about the sanctuary at St. Paul's Cathedral Catholics should not be allowed on the streets of America.
Totally agree.
The root of our problem is that we've become involved in foreign entanglements. We have a War Criminal government filled with psychopaths at every level. And we no longer adhere to the US Constitution as a result.
Our supremacy after WWII was a historical accident in that we sustained virtually no damage to our infrastruture while the rest of the world was a smoking ruin. We were the supplier for the world as they crawled back to civilization. That went to our government's collective mindset, believing we were totally superior to all, for all times. That shit ended when Japanese cars showed up in the 80's and proved that American car factories were basically producing sloppy-assed shit.
But our 'esteemed' government has never, yet, realized that fact.
Yr butt ugly ignorance is showing veghead..It wasn't Saudis, Afghanis, Iraquis nor Taliban dancing on the roof of the van when the WTC went up.
The Five Dancing Israelis (Mossad) on 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv5s_VEmZd0
9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk&feature=youtu.beBrilliant! Anybody have a time machine on them, by chance? And lets just ignore for now the effect on world history of a large number of millenia-old, perpetually warring, iron-age nomadic Arabic tribes in the Middle East, to a man violently allergic to first-world governance models, suddenly finding themselves sitting atop one of the world's greatest fortunes in raw materials.
So the lesson learned is the same one previously known to, and much better understood by the framers of the Constitution, and a primary driver of foreign policy well into the early 20th Century. Fine.
Wisdom would see us gradually returning to a principled, as opposed to a commercially driven, foreign policy with much deeper consideration of national sovereignty of other states. In the mean time, there is the small matter of all hell having broken loose. Ignoring it will most definitely not make it go away. But when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
You make a lot of statements without even trying to back them up. Arguments by simple assertion doesn't cut it around here.
"Violently allergic to first-world governance models". Several were leaders at different periods of history in military affairs, they have leadership capabilities. Your sources for the relative measurements of governance effectiveness and efficiency, please?
Meanwhile, have you noticed we here in the US of A aren't doing very well with our first-world governance model. Europe, too.
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/ghandis-terrorists/
When exactly did "first-world governance models" first appear?
I think they started showing up in the 60's as a result of the publication of 'Tragedy and Hope'.
I don't remember hearing the term 'First World' until late 80's though.
ACP. The Kurds have got to be one of the most fucked over groups in the history of the world. The US has screwed those people more times than I can count, but they still (naively?) support the US just about every time.
Is it naiveté, or a strong distrust of both Sunni and Shia that surround them?
They're like the Hmong...got screwed by the US in Vietnam...finally getting something for their struggles.
So two wrongs make a right? Many here spend quite a bit of time calling out the assholes who kill innocents in the name of freedom and democracy or whatever other bullshit excuse they have. How about calling out a middle ages religion for being fucktard.
So you want me to beat the war drums when there have already been hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims murdered? That's what's involved in "calling out" Islam at this juncture.
Not really. Just have some intellectual honesty for once. Muslims are hardly free market live and let live libertarians. Their religion is dogmatic and involves absolute obedience to their leaders. WTF are you defending these fuckers? Just to be contrary?
In a free market you can chose to spend money on bombs to kill people you never met while I would decline to do so. For some strange reason I have no murderous rage against those who have never done me any harm.
Give them a little more time, Billy. It is not for lack of enthusiasm or commitment on their part. There are just too many of us.
I'm no more worried about Muslims cutting off my head than I am about global warming. But then I refuse to let others use fear to turn me into a pawn. You might want to give it a try, it's very liberating.
Just amazing assertions, great generality, no citations. As I recall my history, Muslims pretty much owned the silk trade for more than 500 years, I assumed that was a free market?
"Their religion is dogmatic". Relative to what other religion measured how? "Involves absolute obedience to their leaders" Relative to what other religion measured how?
Maybe we aren't defending fuckers? Maybe they are just ordinary human beings? Yes, different, and yes some of the Arabic cultures are a PITA, what with using rape to enforce female modesty taboos.
Did you know that American Indians, such savages, torturing people so savagry, never raped? Funny how cultural memes get distributed, don't you think?
And meanwhile, the huge threat to the American people is their own government. The huge threat to everyone is their own government, 200M citizens killed by their own govs in the 20th centruy, that doesn't count civilians killed in wars their govs started. So of course the focus is always on those evil outsiders, fuckers all. Ignore that Deep Blacki State leading the kleptocracy, help the kleptocracy through a few more years. Good man.
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/ghandis-terrorists/
That apply to the Indonesians and Malaysians? You do know there are more Muslims there than the entire Middle East. We could always test the theory and prove whats true, drop a few million of them and see what happens. One thing to kick an ant hill, lets double down and go after the hornets.
@ Billy the tard...ur a FUCKING IDIOT -- go sleep with the goat fuckers. Sounds like u'll be at home after all.
The article says that supporting Islamic radicals is a bad idea. I agree with that premise. Do you?
I do indeed agree with that premise. We should let all of those goat-fucking losers kill themselves. You, however, seem to be carrying the torch for the aforementioned cockroach muslim goat-fucking scum. Just sayin'
You hear what you want to hear. Has it occurred to you that it is the very dictators and terrorist supported by the US that give Muslims a bad name? Think about it. The terrorists are strong because we make them strong. Even the Pentagon has admitted it. The Israeli government admits that they built up Hamas. It was not average Muslim people who put radicals in power it was the US and Israel by their own admission.
Once again I do indeed agree with you; however, I will NEVER marginalize the henious acts of the coward murderous scum in the muslim so-called peaceful religion. As I said b4, we should let the wanna-be 2nd Century thugs live in squaler as they wish.
So in the end - we agree.
But do you realize that anti-Muslim hysteria is a tool of those who fund Islamic radicals? It's a self sustaining cycle. As long as you support the "Muslims are murderous scum" meme then they will be dealt with by the same government whose preferred method of intervention is to arm Islamic radicals.
Didn't you just point out above that the Saudis (muslims) had a big role in 9/11?
Yes. But I don't see Muslims as one multi-headed creature as you apprently do.
Did attacking Iraq because of imaginary connections to 9/11 rather than attacking the Saudis over real connections to 9/11 makes sense to you?
You and I are both Americans. Does that mean that you are responsible for my actions?
lter How does your comment make sense in light of the fact that the USG and Saudis are in bed with one another, and they arent the only two in that bed? The USA leadership is every bit as responsible for setting up 911 as the Saudis are, so stop being intellectually dishonest about that fact.
The only empirically validated religion predicts all this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/dyscordian-justice-dispens...
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/ghandis-terrorists/
Remind which elected government killed those half million kids and then bragged about it.
You are unable to recall that because it never happened. You are a full on Fool.
Dont dispair Billy all things in good time With time and pressure, Islam will learn to accept and love Transgenderism just like we do, until then, well,, don't stop the pressure! It is for their own good!
"We terrorized some folks"
This article doesn't even mention Madeliene Albrights half million dead Iraq women and children from sanctions, more for the second Gulf war, bombed wedding parties all over the place and Libya's complete takedown. There is even more fuel on the fire than he suggests here, just flat out pissed off people.
Of course there were no deaths resulting from Iraqi sanctions. Saddam hed the money available, $65 Billion, IIRC. He would not buy the medical or food supplies so that he could further punish and control his population.
The article is somewhat typical of those that adore communist governments and blame the spread of democracy for all of the world's evils. It is rather easy to spot those who favor the totalitarian communist systems. They will resort to any form of propaganda to mislead the fools who follow them.
Please post the part where he commands us to go out and kill all the unbelievers. Sword is a metaphor.
Read it again. It's your family that your supposed to attack with a sword.
Oh, cute. You don't comprehend the Bible at all and have chosen the only line that can even be interpreted as "violent", disregarding every single other verse which explicitly speaks out against violence save for that used in the defense of your people and the faith.
How about that.
I bet you'll claim next that the Crusades were "the same" as what Islam is doing now, completely ignoring that the Crusades were a DEFENSIVE measure against CENTURIES of GENOCIDE and the theft of Christian land.
Oh, cute. You don't comprehend the Bible at all and have chosen the only line that can even be interpreted as "violent",
You should read the first part of the Bible. It's called the Old Testament. Lots of violence there.
The one old testament story I love is where the Hebrews come up against this group that wants to join them and asks what they should do to be worthy. (I'm paraphrasing, not quoting.)
The Hebrews tell them that they first have to be circumcised. And explain what that means.
The other group goes back home and have circumcision performed (not sure how) that had to have been pretty painful.
The next day, as the men of this group are moaning and sore and can hardly walk, the Hebrews march in and kill everyone.
That is the most clever, and evil, god-damned thing in the Bible.
Ah, here it is! Genesis 34:14-15
So raping without consequence is ok with you? Got it.
So in your opinion if one opposes murdering individuals recovering from surgery that means one supports rape? How do you figure that?
Thanks for proving you've never read the document.
Jesus ended the old covenant and began one anew. End of discussion. The Old Testament is irrelevant for the purposes of discussing Christianity.
And no, since you know nothing whatsoever about what you're discussing, the Jews do not believe in "just the old testament". Sorry.
Very good Tallest, Just like you, when I read something it always says what I thought it would say before I read it, is that smart or not? Smart I think! you are smart too! Keep up the good work.
Read a little further. The sword is coming out of His mouth, it is the Word of God. Read the rest of the Book.
Islam wasn't created by the west, it has never changged it is a caravan raiding warriors code always has been always will be. You are the one with your head in the sand.
What makes you think I haven't read the Bible? You entirely miss the point that if you can take Islamic quotes out of context I can do the same with Bible quotes. If you can condemn all Musl9ims for the actions of some Muslims I can condemn all Christians for the actions of some Christians. It's as if you have no ability to reason whatsoever.
>>What makes you think I haven't read the Bible?
The fact that you have proven you have zero comprehension of the information contained therein.
>>if you can take Islamic quotes out of context
Except this was not done.
>>If you can condemn all Musl9ims for the actions of some Muslims
Except ALL Muslims believe and behave as ALL others do.
Except ALL Muslims believe and behave as ALL others do.
So the Shia v. Sunni divide doesn't exist in your universe and all Muslims eat exactly the same breakfast at the same time? That's an interesting albeit completely insane observation.
Salon.com....now there's a news source you can trust!
There's news and there's opinion. If you disagree with the opinions expressed that's one thing but can you cite any factual errors?
"he would help mastermind the largest terrorist attack on American soil"
9/11 was an inside job. Bin Ladin did not mastermind it.
Red Pill, There is no 'Onjective' reality anymore, fact, myth, fiction are all tightly woven together in the controlling naritive continuously unfolding from the ubiquitious media, everywhere, in the Bank, at Mcdonald's everywhere, that is how it is, my advise, go along to get along, relax enjoy life while we can!
The only good articles I ever read on Salon were written by Paglia.
Yep Bernie says everything Salon prints is THE TRUTH.
A hundred years ago, the Middle-East was one of the world’s most peaceful regions. Today, it is the most violent.
It's disingenuous for the West to pretend there exists no connection between this tragic turn of events and the Sykes-Picot agreement on one hand, and the formation of the state of Israel on the other.
The chimpfucker chimes in. Piece full 100 years ago would be an accurate description of 'the Middle East'. Slavery was going strong 100 years ago in the Middle East, and there are reports it continues.
About modern slavery in the Middle East: http://www.albawaba.com/news/middle-east-slavery-528324
And here: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Slavery
95 years ago, the Islamic Ottomans were genociding the Armenians, right after they grabbed the guns.
Of course, the sandniggers didnt miss a 20th century opportunity for a good genocide. Arab Muslim leader the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini met with Adolf Hitler on 21 November 1941. Earlier that year, he had expressed full support for Hitler's little 'Final Solution'.
So yeah, those fucking ragheads were mighty piece full during the early (and mid) 20th century.
BOOM! goes the dynamite...so to speak.
What, the use of <BOOM> without the obligatory 'ALLATHASNACKBAR'?!?
You know, there actually is an Allan's Snack Bar in the UK:
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g186570-d3678873-Reviews-Al...
4 1/2 stars!!!
"Fish & Chips so good, it makes you want to yell, ALLAN'S SNACKBAR!!!"
Because we never had an issue with slavery? What the fuck?
Hell, peonage was still going on until the 60's.
You are a repulsive example of a human being.
I take joy in the thought that you represent a vocal but vanishing minority of right-wing inbreds in the West, whose time is fading fast.
You aren't necessary in today's world. You will not be missed.
What you are feeling there manifests itself as facism. You are becoming what you believe yourself to loathe. Is it that hard to forgive and try to educate yourself and others?
None of us are NECESSARY in today's wolrd. That is sort of the point of Christianity...you/we/I are loved regardless.
Yeah, this headline is absurb. Sure, the western psycophantic blood-sucking powers-that-be have fomented hatred......BUT.....'Islamic extremism' was born via Mohammad. Hadith and Quran lay out the exemplary character of mohammed which is to be emulated.
So do you want Western powers to continue to fund Islamic radicals or not?
You mean ISIS is riding around in m(b)illions of $ worth of US humvees and using our arms to commit genocide? someone's playing both sides? it's job security for Wall Street. hookers and coke don't pay for themselves
That about sums it up.
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/all-of-your-wars-ar...
Islamic Extremism is as American as apple pie........
Anyone with half a brain knows Islam is extremism. 'Nuff said.
Yes, anyone with only half a brain knows that.
The village pedant strikes again.
If you want your money taken to kill innocents and if you want a bio-metric ID to keep you safe from Muslims that's just what you'll get.
Your argument here represents an illogical leap from your prior. Izzlame is a tyrannical, aggressive, bloodthirsty political ideology. I reject that. I abhor this US .gov's instigation of endless 'war' (and what the US is doing in the Middle East really isnt war, but rather semi-systematic semi-ritualistic murder aimed @ regime destabilization), and unconstitutional surveillance. I reject that, too.
So those who push the Islam is bad meme are not doing it in order to create support for further attacks on Muslims using US blood and treasure?
Some do. Others of us just don't want a toxic religion to infiltrate our society. We have enough of those already.
What makes you think that recognizing the fact that the US policy of supporting Islamic radicals has increased Islamic radicalism will lead to "a toxic religion to infiltrate our society?" Is it your position that supporting radical Islamist was a good thing to do and it should be continued?
Straw man all night for all I care.
It's not a straw man, it's the topic of the article on which you are commenting.
For fuck's sake, Billy. 80% of your comments to this article have nothing to do with the article, and my response to your comment was about putting words in my mouth that I didn't say so you could bolster your point. That's a straw man. Seriously -- what is your love of Islam about? What about that religion has anything to do with your supposed value system of not only libertarianism, but anarchism? Muslims are anything but freedom lovers. I ask again. Are you just being contrary?
Muslims are anything but freedom lovers.
Rose Wilder Lane, one of the most popular libertarian authors of the early 20th century wrote a book called The Dicovery of Freedom. She details four major points at which the ideals of liberty were developed. They were the establishment of Greek democracy. Christianity, Islam and the United States. You can read all about it at mises.org.
http://mises.org/document/3197/The-Discovery-of-Freedom
But to return to the point of the article (if you dare), do you or do you not think that supporting Islamic radicals is a good policy? I don't.
I believe this what some call mental gymnastics.
So as usual you refuse to talk about the actual content of the article. Why is it so difficult for you to state that you either want the US to fund Islamic radicals or you don't want the US to fund Islamic radicals?
You made a lengthy point that had nothing to do with the article (and that in fact contradicts it in many respects), then you tacked on a comment about how we shouldn't support terrorists, which I'll bet everyone here agrees with. I responded to the bulk of your comment, and then you said I don't want to talk about the article. Does this kind of sophomoric argument technique play well amongst your friends?
Are you saying that once distracted you can never return to the subject at hand? Why is it so hard for you to say whether you want your tax money to be sent to Islamic radicals or not?
LetThemEatRand. Stop digging.
I can only speak for myself, there, esse. The US used to be (and can be again) an exception place with exceptional people. What makes Americans exceptional is their belief in the Constitution and its inspiration, the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers responded appropriately to Islam with their military action during the First Barbary War. Recall the position of the ragheads in the opening years of the 19th century, as stated by Tripoli's envoy to the US, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman:
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once"
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Colossians 3:22New International Version (NIV)22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
1 Peter 2:18New International Version (NIV)18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Billy the raghead, why dont you quote me some kookran verses that show how sweet mo-mo desires his followers to be to infidels?
Do you have a coherent argument to make or are you just going to call me names and spell words incorrectly from here on out?
NIV is a heretical translation. Try again, please. Oh, and start your bullshit over from the beginning, by the way. You know, the bullshit where you pull out individual lines, don't comprehend the difference between the Old and New testaments, and where you haven't even heard of a parable before.
Context, Context, Context, the meaning of a fact.
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/context-context-context/
So to evaluate your quote, we would need a statistical study of the distribution of blood-thirsty statements issued by different governments and strata of society. Then compare them with the reality. These days, Arabs have something of a reputation for tending hyperbolic.
I want Islam's religious protections removed.
I want Islam reclassified as a cult of violence.
I want the practice of Islam banned.
If the third item is not complied with, the offenders should simply be deported.
I want no one to die. I want no wars save those in defense of the United States. I want no IDs.
Have you begun the process of amending the Constitution in order to achieve this goal or do you agree with those who simply ignore the Constitution when it doesn't fit their agenda?
So are you mentally defective or are you really just this incapable of comprehending simple logic? I suppose the latter, given the rest of your posts in this thread. I like your downvote brigade, too.
One clearly has not had the (dis)pleasure of meeting a fundaMENTAList Christian.
A short watch of a video called Jesus Camp would show that any Abrahamic religion is going to have a problem or two......
Absolutely! They are on the news almost every night with stories of how they murdered non believers, stoned them to death, threw their homosexual brothers off of roofs, molested young children....all of it in the name of god or jesus. It's just horrible I say. Throw them to the lions!
It really is amazing how many people claim to despise religion while using their disgust to justify Muslim atrocities. If Christians dressed in culturally distinctive clothing, they would be ridiculed to no end, but Muslims should and MUST be respected for it. Amazing double standards that go all the way up to the ACLU as well as all public and most private institutions. American children are not allowed to wear Christian artifacts or clothing to school yet Muslims can wear just about anything and pray three times a day, and get a pass, if for no other reason that for progressive proof of "tolerance". Public displays of Christianity, a by far dominant religion, are just too disrespectful of more " diverse" sectors of society.
Again, these Abrahamic religions all have a common theme:
Bring back Big Sky Daddy with a BIG STICK, called APOCALYPSE.
Notice how pretty much everything is going to plan, er, um, Scripture.
Something about Damascus, and a ruinous heap, or something like that.......
It is all part of a plan, as the Joker would say to us all.
Undoubtedly there are Christians waiting for end of times...many think they see it clearly coming right now, but I know of none actually trying to bring it about....as compared to many Muslims. You see there's nuts, and then there's fucking crazy. Try not to confuse the two as it can be a life or death mistake.
Christian Zionists support Israel so that the temple can be rebuilt and the anti-Christ can sit upon the throne and thereby bring about the end times. Imagine that! They want to rush Jesus' timeline by bringing the devil on board as soon as possible.
Agreed they are idiots, just like the idiots who want Ayn Rand and her co-author Alan Greenspan to teach us how to live our lives. As a reminder, both were/are Zionists.
There you go thinking in black and white again. I can listen to a Beatles song or read a poem by Pope or a book by Rand and cull useful information and entertainment from each without basing my life on any of those works.
Can you tell me what artists you enjoy and how you've based your entire life around their thoughts and opinions? I'd love to hear about how that woirks for you.
While I may be the lone voice in the wilderness, here is a book from a few years ago on the subject titled "With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military."
And there is this:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/For_God_and_Country_...
http://observer.com/2012/12/backward-christian-soldiers-jesus-not-only-s...
It is easy to view the world as us and them.
Tomorrow, anyone may be "the enemy" or "them" simply because they have a differnt skin color, different clothing style, different language, different view point, different __________________.
As someone who grew up in Amish country, I can confidently assert you are full of it.
Boys dress in distinctive clothing. Girls wear head coverings, married women different head overings. Amish are proud that they do not assimilate, and 90% of their young people spend up to a year experiencing 'the English world' and then return to their warm society to take pride in simple work and good deeds.
I have never heard the Amish claim they were being prevented from running their religious lives any way they wished.
No problems for them. Why would there be for any religion? Christians in the US are experiencing the push-back from non-believers they have always experienced, since the early days of the Republic. Amish are different, and have nothing to do with civic life. Others do, and don't like religious symbols presented as 'the religion of the nation'. The US does not have a national religion, and bunches of us don't much like your pretending that we do. You turn that around and pretend to be persecuted.
Nonsense. When Amish are persecuted, I will believe that Christians are.
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/conservative-values/
Must've forgot about these while you were typing on your Amish computer.
http://lancasterpa.com/amish/amish-school-shooting/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/26/amish-beard-cutting-attacks-16-face-trial-ohio_n_1831404.html
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-wayne/amish-boy-shot-in-head-while-plowing-field-in-wayne-county
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amish7.htm
People who isolate themselves within their own communities do so to insulate themselves from public scrutiny. Put them in the middle of any major population center and see how they do. And my point is that the modern world is becoming less tolerant of conspicuous Christians almost exclusively to the benefit of virtually every other religion and cult. I recall no legal DEFENSE of Christianity, while there are lots of cases of Islamic and every other cult and religion being defended in court and media. Is there any other group beside white, mostly Christian men, that is prosecuted for "hate" crimes?
religious zealots are history's greatest useful idiots.
A man who is motivated to risk his life for something is a formidable opponent. You want your troops believing God is on their side, and if they fall, that Valhalla/Elysium awaits. The CIA recognized this.
When you destroy a person's habitat, food/water supply, economic opportunities, it is bound to happen. It is worse when you destroy a community's culture and history, leaving them with little sense of worth, which leads to a toxic mindset. Once the mind is destroyed, it is a long road to get that person back to reasonable sanity. You do that to a community, nation, race, religion, that is the backlash you get. From Palestine, to Baltimore, the symptoms are the same, and so is the problem. It will be a real shame if NWO succeeds at a civil war in America. It's probably too late for the rest of the world too as WW3 is right around the corner.
It's almost as if someone got all the traditional conservative people of the world fighting against each other so that some new order could take control of the world.
'conservative' need not include slaveowning, bitch-beating, or sorcerer stoning. That's just part of izzlame.
All those things happen in the USA too. Why not fix the problems at home before complaining about somewhere else especially since you said that you have no desire to intervene overseas.
You are incorrect. Slavery is illegal, and there are many laws protecting women from physical abuse. I dont think there has been a witch trial in the US since the last 1700s. . . The Constitution is a powerful document that lists individual freedoms that the rest of the world does not enjoy. The Founding fathers were largely correct in their response to the raghead menace. That included direct military action.
The US should redirect/retask those resources, not b/c izzlame is innocuous to US interests, but rather b/c there are more effective ways of addressing the threat. . . for now.
I often read about people who kill others in the US because God told them to do so. More often than not it is mothers who God commands to kill their own children. Not to mention the millions of babies killed since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.
So all of the ME's environment was destroyed, while it was colonized and brought into modernity and its natural resources developed to make it one of the richest regions of the world.
Right.
And their culture was destroyed?? They take their culture all over the world with them and increasingly seem intent on killing anyone who resists enjoying its limitless joys. It is America's culture that is being destroyed, not Muslims ANYWHERE!!
Is it a Muslim or an American child in this picture?
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/girl.jpg
"There is much more than a tinge of racism in this orientalist idea that, for some reason, Muslims in the Middle East are centuries behind the englightened Christian West. This ludicrous claim does not stand up to even the most superficial historical scrutiny.
For one, never mentioned is the fact that, only decades ago, most Middle Eastern countries were Western colonies. Their civilian populations were terrorized and brutalized by Western colonial powers."
THIS IS A LODE OF SHIT. Looking @ the current Islamic world, the MOST advanced were also the one that were colonized, enabling them to BENEFIT from the rule of law, modern technology, etc. The least colonized (Persia, former Ottoman Empire) were then and still remain the most backward.
Please don't tell us the author is biased!! I was just preparing to lash mself in guilty penance for "our" acts. It is funny that these radical tendencies had "largely" disappeared four centuries ago, when to read the Koran would tend to make one believe that there was never any other path for Islam.