Beslan bump
Beslan is representative of a much older and much more infamous political movement that hasn't reared it's ugly head since the early 20th century. That is anarchism, which has recently merged with Islamic radicalism. There were a whole bunch of assasinations of presidents, czars in the late 19th and early 20th century attached to no political demands except to somehow bring down the state and revert to some sort of governmentless utopia. For Example, President William Mckinley was assasinated by anarchists. World war I was started by an assasination by an anarchist.
With all due respect to Mr. O'Neill, isn't that just a bit overdrawn?
I'd certainly agree with the notion that Clinton & Company were dealing with forces they didn't understand and were blissfully ignorant of the "unintended consequences" of their oh-so-liberal, well-meaning actions.
But I wouldn't go this far. I'd blame leftist naivete, not leftist calculation. Simply stated, at the conclusion of the Cold War, the Left found pockets of chaos. And, anxious to display their good intentions, they meddled...and made it worse.
Can't say I agree with the conclusions, though...
Did Iran have nothing to do with this event? Saudi Arabia? This was all caused by the West?
One understands what the author is trying to say, of course, but it's still worth keeping in mind that it takes two to tango. Yes we have helped to break down the nation-state paradigm, but Islamic imperialists of all stripes have been only too happy to rush through the hole which was created in the process.
Either way we're stuck with the mess we've made. If our behavior has caused the old Westphalian nation-state system to break down, in the process allowing the emergence of an internationalist loosely-linked Islamic imperialist conspiracy, any solution involves acknowledging that fact, to be sure. Unfortunately many people aren't there yet and most of them are on the "left".
I think the answer to these questions can be found in the Madrasses. They teach in these schools that murder and terrorism are OK if the victims are infidels.
Well, yeah, BUT...
What's missing here is the Muslim connection. While the author's thesis explains the 'stateless' parameters, it does not explain the aggression itself.
That is, while the internationalization of terror MAY be a result of the "UN mentality" now espoused by Bush II, that's only the 'internationalization' part.
What the author does NOT explain is the rationale behind the acts themselves, which is radical Muslim ideology.
Ergo, using this logic, were I a parent from Beslan, one or all of my children might have been murdered by those people because of the West? I am not buying this.
Or, conversely, as a Muslim, I would murder children because of the West? Since when does that serve any purpose but fomenting blood lust? Hey. At this point, they want it? They've got it. Something about ........let God sort 'em out.
The Koran already had those "stateless" goals --- to bring the whole world --- all people --- under Muslim submission. Muslims are instructed that they must no live among the infidels except for the purpose of conquering the infidels --- how stateless can you get? World wide Islam is the goal, destruction of all governments besides the one Islam government is what they're after.
1, Globalism - the "New World Order" - rose to prominence in the early 90s after the collapse of the Soviet empire. Whether running large multi-national corporations, or influencing the policies of major countries, it's undeniable that the globalists, who are western leftists generally, view nation-states as an impediment to their utopian dreams. Hence the open-borders lobby, Soros' Open-Society Institute, etc. etc. During the 90s, the globalists viewed the Islamists as effective tools to achieve theie goals in those places that might prove resistant to the drumbeat of multiculturalism - places like Yugoslavia and Russia, where nationalist feelings still run deep. After all, there's no problem with the average Euro-crapweasel, who has been indoctrinated since pre-school to despise his own nation/culture and worship at the altar of multiculturalism and "diversity."
2. The Islamists, useful though they were a decade ago, have blown up in the globalists' face as of 9/11/01 - so that there is now a split in globalist strategy.
(adding my own analysis here)
On one side are the "practical" globalists who realize that the jihadis are as big of a threat to themselves as they are to any remaining western nation-states. Thus their short-term goal is to put a lid on the jihadis. Tony Blair is the best example of this view. He's a globalist who will happily destroy England as a distinct nation via open borders and handing over sovereignty to the EU, but he's smart enough to realize that utopia may never come about if the jihadis manage to set the world ablaze.
On the other side you have Chirac and Schroeder, who think they can eventually corrupt the burgeoning Muslim hordes in their own countries through the degenerate moral climate so typical of post-Christian Europe. It's nothing but wall-to-wall sex, drugs, and MTV in Euro-utopia, all subsidized by endless welfare and coupled with a multiculturalist police state where even mild criticism of the "religion of peace" can land you in prison. They are betting that the Muslims there will eventually become just another group of apathetic, obedient automatons (like the natives) - willing to swallow whatever effluent is emitted by the 'ministry of truth' (the Crapweasel media). Thus Chirac and Schroeder pander to both the Kool-Aid swilling Euros and the seething Muslims. They simply refuse to acknowledge the threat, and kowtow at every opportunity to the jihadis.