Posted on 08/13/2006 2:29:03 PM PDT by mark502inf
The first Islamist terrorist plot against New York's World Trade Centre was carried out on 26 February 1993 with a car bomb under one of the twin towers. It killed six people but failed in its aim of bringing the whole building down. To achieve that, another plot was hatched.
Meanwhile, British and American foreign policy was focused not on the Islamic world, but on the unstable transition of former communist countries to democracy.
Twice during the Nineties, Nato launched military interventions in the Balkans, both aimed at protecting Muslim populations in Bosnia and Kosovo. What Middle East policy there was focused on diplomatic efforts, led by President Clinton, to negotiate lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This was hardly a Western war against Islam.
Britain and America spent much of the Nineties trying to prevent conflicts or to resolve them. At worst, as shamefully in Rwanda, they simply ignored them. They were transparently not running a conspiracy to trample the Muslim faithful underfoot. The people who depicted it that way were a tiny minority telling lies to justify murder.
But things have changed. The argument that terrorism is, in fact, a response to Western actions overseas has gained currency. It was voiced most recently on Saturday in an open letter by a number of influential British Muslim leaders to Tony Blair. The Prime Minister's policy in the Middle East, they said, puts British lives at risk.
The implication is that the young Britons who last week were accused of plotting to blow up passenger planes in mid-air would have been less susceptible to al-Qaeda recruitment had Britain not fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Policy should be changed, they said, to avoid giving ideological 'ammunition to extremists'.
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.guardian.co.uk ...
Meanwhile, engagement in Iraq has made it harder to secure victory in Afghanistan, where the anti-terror justification for war was rock solid.
But even within the bleakest possible analysis of Mr Blair's foreign policy, it is still simply not true that the West is waging war on Islam. Just as it is not true that the CIA was really behind the 11 September attacks or any other arrant conspiratorial nonsense that enjoys widespread credence in the Middle East and beyond.
It is also a logical and moral absurdity to imply, as some critics of British policy have done, that mass murder is somehow less atrocious when it is motivated by an elaborate narrative of political grievance. If young British Muslims are alienated, that is sad and their anger should be addressed. But anyone whose alienation leads them to want to kill indiscriminately has crossed a line into psychopathic criminality.
Policy cannot be dictated by the need to placate such people. British Muslim leaders are entitled, along with everybody else, to raise questions about the conduct and consequences of Mr Blair's foreign policy. But they have a more immediate responsibility to promote the truth: that Britain is not the aggressor in a war against Islam; that no such war exists; that there is no glory in murder dressed as martyrdom and that terrorism is never excused by bogus accounts of historical victimisation.
The title should actually read: "These ludicrous lies about the West and Islam"
Fixed, thanks.
It's not even excused by genuine accounts of historical victimization. Once you adopt the tactic of terror, you lose, however legitimate your grievances might have been before.
At least, that's the way it would go if I ruled the world.
We should be, since Islam has been waging war on the West since before we had a Constitution. It only became official though in 1998.
Bump for later
The Comanches were terrorists until the Federal government crushed them. They weren't crazier or nastier than the Islamofilth...
If you really want to get depressed, read the comments section of that article. 98% of the replies blather about how this is all Britain's fault. Really depressing.
A little tid-bit:
The Comanches were the only tribe that would also attack at night. Other tribes feared their souls wouldn't be found at night if they died in battle by the 'great spirit'.
There were no night vision devices back then.
ping
A tip from a muslim started the investigation that foiled the latest plot in London.
A muslim woman who was worried about what a relative of hers was getting into.
Not MSM material, apparently.
Nuke Mecca, fix a lot of things and give those so inclined something to complain about.
mass murder is somehow less atrocious when it is motivated by an elaborate narrative of political grievance.
This is the mantra of the barbarians: their actions are justifiable since the West has historically oppressed the Palestinian people blah blah blah and stained the holy lands with their infidel presence yada yada yada. Every time this claptrap is voiced, it should immediately be stamped "Rejected." There is no moral, logical, or historical validity to the claim whatsoever. It is nothing more than an excuse, the Islamic cultural equivalent of making a defense of an offense.
If young British Muslims are alienated, that is sad and their anger should be addressed.
Yeah, the same way other vague, communal "anger" is addressed: by ignoring it. It's nothing but childish whining. There is literally NOTHING for these animals to be angry about. Not that that stops them ...
But anyone whose alienation leads them to want to kill indiscriminately has crossed a line into psychopathic criminality.
Gee, ya think? Does that mean that I'm not justified in climbing a tower with a rifle just because I got a parking ticket, or because my boss is a bureaucratic pinhead?
Policy cannot be dictated by the need to placate such people.
I would amend this to read "Policy cannot be dictated by the need to TOLERATE such people." No society need suckle its own destroyers.
British Muslim leaders are entitled, along with everybody else, to raise questions about the conduct and consequences of Mr Blair's foreign policy.
I don't think "redress of grievances" includes flying airplanes into office buildings.
But they have a more immediate responsibility to promote the truth: that Britain is not the aggressor in a war against Islam; that no such war exists; that there is no glory in murder dressed as martyrdom and that terrorism is never excused by bogus accounts of historical victimisation.
And more than that, that anything is to be gained by murdering thousands of innocent Westerners. What do they think, that one day they'll blow up enough stuff that all Western governments will say, "Okay. We give up. We've ordered all our citizens to wrap bedsheets around their heads and start screwing goats."
If there's a point to me made with all this mayhem, it's that Islam is organically incapable of living in peace. It is a "religion" that demands enemies, and if it doesn't find them, it will manufacture them at random.
This might be true of Britain, but American policy was focused on getting an intern under the Presidential desk.
Thanks. FReepers abound with knowledge.
Good comments, I-Jack. You gleaned out the "greatest hits" from the column!
OK, I admit I laughed.
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.