Posted on 08/16/2006 9:20:58 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Had the Liquid Bomb Plot (as some English papers call it) succeeded, a headline the next day might have accurately said, “British Terrorists Attack America.”
Though the plot was foiled by excellent British police work, it nonetheless demonstrated that the land of Locke and Blackstone, the cradle of Western democracy and law, has become a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.
Given that the terrorists planning to commit what may have proved to be the deadliest anti-American terrorist attack ever were born and bred in democratic Britain, President Bush may want to reconsider his strategy of pushing democratic regime-change around the world, and especially in the Middle East, as the means of protecting the U.S. against terrorism.
“We know that democracies do not foment terror or invade their neighbors,” Bush said last year, explaining his policy.
“If the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation and resentment and violence ready for export. The United States has adopted a new strategy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East; a strategy that recognizes that the best way to defeat the ideology of terror as a weapon is to spread freedom and democracy.”
But the first premise of this strategy is borrowed from bleeding-heart liberalism. Muslim terrorists, it supposes, start out as victims of benighted governments. Remove those governments, it concludes, and you will end Islamist terrorism.
Yet, how can this apply to Great Britain?
Freedom House, which ranks the world’s nations by the degree of “political rights” and “civil liberties” they afford, gives the United Kingdom the best score possible in each category. The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom ranks the U.K. as the world’s 5th freest economy. The U.S. ranks only 9th.
So why have native Brits been implicated for the second time in little more than a year (the London subway bombings was the first) in an Islamist conspiracy to commit mass murder?
All 23 alleged conspirators held in Britain in connection with the latest plot were reportedly British born and raised. They did not embrace terrorism under the heel of some Oriental despot; they embraced it at British universities and in relatively comfortable suburban British homes.
British oppression did not create these suspected terrorists. A radical Islamic ideology did. Changing Britain’s form of government will not change that radical vision.
Indeed, the challenge for Britain will be to defeat those who embrace it without sacrificing its own traditions of liberty.
Writing in the London Daily Telegraph on Sunday, film maker Russell Razzaque explained his own brief exposure to an Islamist club at a British university in 1989. Leaders of the club espoused the view that: “The duty of every Muslim was … to join the battle to set mankind straight and this was possible only via the establishment of a global Islamist state ruled by a single ruler—Khilafah—imposing a strict interpretation of Shariah law across the board. Our religious and moral obligation was to this cause alone.”
The same edition of the Telegraph reported on the Islamist literature found in office of the London Metropolitan University Islamic Society, headed by Waheed Zaman, one of the suspected Liquid Bomb Plot terrorists. One sheet said: “Allah guarantees the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause … that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty.”
Zaman’s sister said of him: “My brother loves fish and chips and Liverpool Football Club.”
Earlier this year, I wrote in praise of the speech House International Relations Chairman Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican, delivered when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared in his committee. With Rice sitting before him, Hyde advocated a return to the “clear-eyed and sober-minded understanding of this world” embraced by our forebears.
He rebutted the well-meaning but mistaken notion that “our interests are best served by assigning a central place in the foreign policy of our nation to the worldwide promotion of democracy.” He dismissed this as “the Golden Theory” and advocated instead a morally responsible realism.
“We can and have used democracy as a weapon to destabilize our enemies, and we may do so again,” Hyde said. “But if we unleash revolutionary forces in the expectation that the result can only be beneficent, I believe we are making a profound and perhaps uncorrectable mistake. History teaches that revolutions are very dangerous things, more often destructive than benign, and uncontrollable by their very nature. Upending established order based on a theory is far more likely to produce chaos than shining uplands.”
In last year’s Lebanese elections, the Hezbollah terrorist group won 14 parliament seats and a place in the government. This year’s Palestinian elections delivered the Palestinian Authority to Hamas. Is it in U.S. interests for Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to become more like Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority? Even if those states could peacefully replicate the political order of our best ally, Great Britain, would that stop anti-American Islamist terrorists from arising within their borders?
History is already proving Henry Hyde right.
Not all those who claim the name Christian will go out on a missions trip or knock on doors to spread the gospel but those who strictly interpret the scriptures and follow what they read will. Same goes for Muslims, except they aren't called to just stop at knocking on doors they follow it up with bombs and bullets and saw off the heads of unbelievers on TV. Now in Iraq we see mostly Muslims bombing other Muslims because they believe the other group is apostate and even deeper are jealous of the power and wealth the one group has enjoyed, they think at the expense of the other. It almost reminds one of Ireland in the 80's and 90's except we know that those people were actually motivated by politics at the top. Here, politics are intricately entwined with religious fanaticism and there is no political solution on earth that can stop it.
You mean the Turkish government, not the citizens. Much like Pakistan, the Turk government is not Sharia despite its citizens, not because of them. Give them a democratic vote and you'll have Sharia in Turkey and Pakistan.
Given that the terrorists planning to commit these atrocities were home-bred Britons, the Western world may want to reconsider its strategy of tolerating Islam anywhere in its midst. It is apparent that being reared in a "tolerant" culture earns you no points toward redemption when the jihadis get their bomb allowance.
Democracy isn't the problem; Islam is.
The difference between Britain and Iraq is more ethnicity than politics and governmental forms. Most Brits still share a common ancestry with the Founders of America. They pursue those seen as common enemies. Most Iraqis, both in 2001 and today, would be far more likely to side with the would be terrorists. Your point is a fallacy in your own subjective assessment of the realities involved.
Incidentally, you can go virtually anywhere in the world where you have a sizeable community of ethnic British, and you will find similar cultural norms. The same is true of most other peoples. It is this reality, which ultimately determines the course of nations, and the cultures they create. Man creates his cultures, not the other way around.
As for the President's folly in trying to alter other nations cultures? One would suggest that he look at how well that succeeded when those same Brits to whom we refer, tried to change the culture of their Irish cousins over several centuries. They turned what could have been natural allies into bitter enemies. It was folly then, and it is folly now.
William Flax
so reading between the lines,
is this author saying that belief in Islam is directly equal to advocating the violent overthrow of the Government of the USA?
This is imporatant because this is a question on USCIS immigration forms. (right above "were you ever a member of the Nazi party?")
I'm at the point where the only solution is either the Muslims take this problem in hand and root it out themselves, or Western Civilization will need to enforce apartheid, with no Muslims being welcome in the West.
Uh, dude. The Turks voted in a Islamist party several years ago, who are still the majority today. They have yet to call for sharia. And they have a reasonably secular constitution they must abide by. You would be safer in the streets of Istanbul than in the streets of London.
And pakistan has previously voted in a woman, of all people, to be prime minister. Pakistan has indeed been radicalized to some degree now. Thank goodness Bush has the smarts to help keep Mushariff in power, for now.
Yeah, there will always be this tension. But the trouble is that supporting autocratic governments in Saudi and Egypt has helped forment the threat. The only spaces anyone could go in those countries to discuss a different form of politics under those repressive regimes, (whose place in power is ultimately guaranteed by the US), are the mosques. And we wonder why they hate the US..
If I were a Saudi I wouldn't like my government very much. I also wouldn't like the US very much as they are the ultimate guarantor of the Saudi Royal Families' position.
Is this the "morally responsible realism" Hyde is advocating?
On 9/11 15 of the hijackers were Saudi. Most of the rest, if not all, were Egyptian. Not Palestinian, Iranian or Afghan, but nationals from countries that are ostensibly strong US allies.
"For decades, American policy sought to achieve peace in the Middle East by promoting stability in the Middle East, yet these policies gave us neither." - Bush
"The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack." - Blair
I understand why the US is scared Islamic groups could come into power. There ain't much alternative at the moment. But, for instance, let's look at the Egyptian presidential election of 2005 - the first allegedly contested presidential election in Egypt's history, but it was completely boycotted by the major opposition parties, saying it was unlikely to be free or fair, and that the election regulations severely restricted independent candidates and overwhelmingly favoured Mubarak.
The "election" resulted in Mubarak winning 78% - 80% of the "vote".
The US largely praised the vote and the result! Bush complains about Chavez, but you tell me the difference, outside of US "interests" which I don't reckon are furthered by backing a rigged election for an autocrat who spends his nation's school budgets on books that call Jews pigs, and goes begging for money to the US Congress so that he keeps a peace deal with Tel Aviv..
Don't give up because Hamas has been elected. What other choice is there apart from Fatah? The corruption of the secular nationalists is seen in stark contrast with the piety of the religious groups.
The only antidote to this are open societies. British muslims have been radicalised through lunatic preachers who advocate sharia law in the UK and a war on Muslims. Is this any reason to turn our back on the legitimate claims of freedom? Be very careful.
"See now why this hysteric "All Muslims are terrorists" doctrine of the Neo Isolationist is so utterly absurd?"
False premise. No facts. Another rhetorical magic show.
If your question was "Do you *support* violent sexual predation" you would have something similar to the Pew survey which asserted to Muslims that "Violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam can be justified."
The responses "sometimes/rarely" (and "rarely" does mean "yes") ranged from 20 to more than 50 percent when asked of Muslims in Europe and in Arab countries.
So it's fair to say that 20 to 50 percent of Muslims do in fact support terrorism against civilians to "defend Islam". Those are pretty high numbers no matter how you cut it.
Your citation of Muslims fighting Muslims is equally absurd.
This violent death cult has since its inception been just as willing to kill and terrorize Muslim blasphemers and heretics as it has been to slaughter Kuffar infidels.
This is a surprise to me, considering that the entire British medical profession is state-controlled.
Take Texas out of the mix, and I'll bet that the US wouldn't rank in the top 20.
I agree with your posts. The War on Terror is an undertaking the US and its allies must prosecute to its fullest extent. However, the Bush administrations efforts to spread democracy throughout the Islamic world, is an effort in utter futility.
It will be one vote, one time for all but the 11 or so Iraqis who actually "get it".
Your logic is folly. The Japs had no democracy to speak of in their history. Up unitl post WWII, they were a warrior culture, of great prowess and prestige, and under the influence of the emporer-gods who ran the place. Not Christian, not westernized, and certainly not democratic.
But by golly, they sure are now, and one of our staunchest allies, at that.
Look what has happened to the communist wet dream of Marx and Lenin. Sure their are a few holdouts still. But it was ONLY Ronald Reagan and a very small handful of others who were wise enough to know that the godless ideology was going to land on the "scrap heap" of history. You must recall how the intellegencia on both left and right, and the Real-politiksnics ridiculed Reagan's vision.
Seems to me the British Empire did very well in changing the culture in India. They are now the World's largest democracy and getting more properous by the day. So obviously the Hindus are accepting of "enlightenment". Look at Turkey, after the fall of the Ottoman empire, Attaturk ruled with an iron fist, yet was wise enough to set up a proper constitution, which is still in place as we speak and Turkey will soon join the EU. They have been a staunch US ally up until the latest Iraq war. But we still share intelligence with them.
Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, and even Saudi Arabia are starting to moving in the right direction. Away from terrorism. In no samll part due to GWB.
The Cold War lasted 50 years. Expect the WOT to take at least 20, and you can thank GWB for putting the change in motion.
So you are predicting that Afghanistan and Iraq will fail and revert to tyrrany?
So our government has woken up and is more proactive to stop these kinds of events and has been successful. What's the point?
Well-said!
There are nuts in this country as well. Does that mean that democracy doesn't work here?
It is worse than that. It is actually totally counter-productive for two reasons. The moderates, whom we have been able to work with in the Islamic world for decades, represent minority elites. Promoting "one-man/one-vote" folly, where the average IQ of the crowds in the streets is in the mid 80s, is the surest way to promote the radicals, and undermine the traditionally more moderate leadership.
Secondly, the perception that we are trying to change their culture, is the recruiting aid, which the radicals use to obtain new volunteers in the Universities; to obtain those with the higher intelligence capable of hatching and carrying out complex plots, such as that just thwarted.
We need to search out and destroy those plotting against us. That is a given. But we do not need to contiunally taunt others into joining them. (For the approach to the War, which I have been advocating since 2001: War, 2001.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.