>The latest attack in London – the third to hit Britain within seventy-five days – is once again provoking a debate about the relationship between Islam and terrorism. On one side we have those who say Islam is inherently violent, and is incompatible with the basic canons of Western civilization. On the other side, we have liberals who say that this is a libel on an entire religion, and that advocates of religious violence are a distinct minority within the Muslim faith.
>These two views have distinct policy implications: the former would impose what amounts to a Muslim ban on travel to Western countries, and would furthermore mandate State surveillance of mosques and other religious institutions of that faith. The latter stance would oppose these measures, and proceed as if Muslims posed the same danger to us as, say, Presbyterians, i.e. none at all.
>Both views are simplistic nonsense. Furthermore, neither offers an effective policy to deal with the problem as defined.
>The origins of Islamic terrorism are not in dispute: the idea that “they hate us because we’re free,” i.e. because of our secular values and Western lifestyle, was not even worth considering, at least initially. After all, Japan, for example, which is not exactly an exemplar of Islamic values, has never been attacked by Islamic extremists. South America has proved similarly immune. The focus of the Islamists’ wrath has been on the United States and Western Europe – not coincidentally, those countries which have a long history of intervention in the Muslim world.
>Which brings us to the theory of “blowback,” the idea that the root cause of radical Islamic terrorism is simple retaliation. Here the writings of Chalmers Johnson, whose book, entitled Blowback; The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, was published before 9/11, and also of Robert Pape, who has done yeomen’s work on this issue, are very useful. Johnson put the concept in its historical context, and Pape shows, with extensive detailed evidence, that occupied peoples routinely adopt such tactics as suicide bombings to fight the overwhelming presence of occupiers. And this is not limited to Islamists, by any means: the Tamil Tigers, fighting for the “liberation” of Sri Lanka, for example, employed these same tactics.
>And so the “blowback” concept, in its pure form, avers that this isn’t about religion, but about resistance: the resistance of a militarily weak insurgency against an occupying power that exerts overwhelming force. Adherents of this theory point to the statements of the terrorists themselves, principally al-Qaeda, which declared that the presence of US troops on the “sacred” soil of Saudi Arabia motivated – and justified – the 9/11 attacks. Aside from that, they point to other examples of Western imperialism – the invasion and occupation of Iraq, US support to Muslim despots, and the ongoing “war on terrorism” that, from their perspective, is a war on Islam.
>So it’s all very cut and dried, simple really – but is it?
--->
Adrian Taylor
--->
>It’s been sixteen years since the 9/11 attacks, long enough for a strand of Islam to emerge that views terrorism against Western targets as a religious duty. Furthermore, the radical Islamist critique of Western values and lifestyle as morally corrupt has been integrated into the purely consequentialist idea of “blowback” as retaliation for specific actions. Because it can surely be argued – especially by religious ideologues – that a society capable of killing hundreds of thousands in, say, Iraq, is inherently depraved. Given the theory of “blowback,” this merging of a typically anti-colonialist narrative with a moral critique was inevitable. And to give it a religious angle wasn’t difficult. After all, in the years since September 11, 2001, have the US and its allies attacked any non-Muslim countries?
>And it’s not as if there aren’t elements within orthodox Islam that need only elaboration to legitimize this mutant variation. The very concept of jihad, and the storied history of Islamic conquerors who “converted” new adherents by force, feed into this frenzied fundamentalism, which seeks to return to a “purer” form of Mohammed’s creed. Of course, one could point to similarly aggressive tendencies in Christianity, as well as other faiths, and yet the missing element here is a history of military occupation and conflict.
>Religious belief, like all human concepts, isn’t static: it undergoes changes in response to events. It adapts, it mutates, it evolves. Christianity changed in response to the advance of science: Galileo is no longer considered a heretic. Judaism was transformed by the Holocaust: Zionism, yesterday embraced by a tiny minority of Jews, is dominant today. Islam is not immune to the tides of history.
--->
Jose Gonzalez
--->
>Western liberals downplay this uncomfortable truth because they generally disdain religion and fail to appreciate its power. They cannot understand how a person could drive a truck into a crowd of pedestrians, and go on a stabbing spree, while shouting “This is for Allah!” Allah, for them, is a delusion: religion is a primitive throwback, a reactionary atavism that is on its way out. Yet this is hardly true in most areas of the world outside of the Global Metropolis.
>The failure of Western liberal elites to acknowledge this reality – the reality of a newly militant strand of Islam that upholds terror as a sacred duty – is linked to their appeasement of the Saudis. For years the Kingdom has exported its austere version of Islam, Wahabism, which serves as the theological foundations of the very terrorist movement we are supposedly pledged to fight.
--->
Jaxon Harris
--->
>A few days before the attack on London Bridge, the news broke that an investigation into the sources of terrorist funding commissioned by the government of former Prime Minister David Cameron would probably not be published due to its “sensitive” nature: there’s too much evidence that the Saudis are the principal financiers of terrorist organizations.
>Britain recently signed off on a series of multi-billion dollar arms deals with the Saudis: the US has done the same, in a deal brokered by none other than the President’s son-in-law. Meanwhile, Donald Trump travels to the Kingdom where an “anti-terrorist center” is inaugurated – by the very folks who are funding radical Islamic terrorism worldwide.
>The West has done everything possible to encourage the growth and development of radical Islamic terrorism, from invading the Muslim world to succoring and supporting the state sponsors of terrorist organizations. We armed and funded Islamic extremists in Syria in a bid to overthrow the secular despotism of Bashar al-Assad – and then wondered how and why returnees from that conflict took their holy war to the streets of Europe’s cities. One wouldn’t have acted any differently if the goal had been to deliberately create a terrorist menace.
--->
Gabriel Watson
--->
>And what is the solution offered by our rulers? British Prime Minister Theresa May says we must regulate the Internet, which is now supposedly a “safe space” for terrorists:
>"We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed – yet that is precisely what the Internet, and the big companies that provide Internet-based services provide. We need to work with allies democratic governments to reach international agreements to regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning.”
>The British government already regulates the Internet and its powers have been used primarily to quash alleged anti-Muslim sentiment: you can be arrested and charged with a “hate crime” for saying the wrong thing about Islam on Twitter or in a blog post. The “Investigatory Powers Act” was passed by Parliament in November: it requires Internet providers to maintain a list of web sites visited by all Internet users for up to a year, and also gives the government broad powers to intercept communications. May wants to internationalize this regulation.
--->
Elijah Perry
--->
>It’s hard to believe that May and her cohorts really think this will have the least effect on terrorist activities. It’s clearly just a pretext to regulate a phenomenon that threatens the powers-that-be. Rather than combat terrorism, the idea is to extend the authority of government as far as they can get away with – and, as the terrorist wave rises, there’s no telling how far they will go.
>Not only are Western governments uninterested in actually stopping terrorism, but the terrible truth is that there is no stopping it. Some problems have no solution, and this is one of them. We can wipe out ISIS in Syria, but they will scatter worldwide, returning as “refugees” to the cities of their enemies. We can restrict travel, reject Muslim immigrants: and yet the second and third generations, already embedded in Western societies, will take up their cause. We can spy on our own citizens, regulate the Internet within an inch of its life, restrict “hate speech,” bomb more Muslim countries – and still the monster’s tentacles will wriggle through the interstices and grasp at our throats.
>This is what we have unleashed on ourselves: a monster that won’t be killed. The idea that we cannot live with this is akin to the idea that we cannot live with our own history: it is an idea without meaning. The past is prologue: it won’t be repealed or denied. We invaded Iraq. We invaded Afghanistan. We funded and armed al-Qaeda during the cold war, in league with our Saudi allies, while Riyadh spread its ideology of hate on a global scale.
--->
Aaron Long
--->
>In Greek mythology, the figure of Nemesis dramatizes our current predicament: she is the goddess of retribution, whose name is “derived from the Greek words nemêsis and nemô, meaning ‘dispenser of dues.’” She pursues her quarry relentlessly, visiting on them the consequences of their deeds.
>Her pursuit can be ameliorated, albeit not finally and immediately ended, by reversing our course of futile wars – in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. – and ending our alliance with the mandarins of terror in Riyadh and the sheikdoms of the Gulf. Yet still the monster will live: it cannot be slain by conventional means – it will have to die a natural death. The best we can do is to stop prolonging its life.
Carson Murphy
give me the tl;dr, pham
Leo Martinez
Stop supporting middle eastern groups or leaders of any kind to minimize pissing muslims off any further, and stop bringing in or setting conditions to piss off muslims within your borders, and just wait out and let things simmer down, even if it means a few more attacks as a final lash of a dying animal
(And most importantly the Saudis are doing almost everything as far as radicalizing islam but even putin and trump suck saudi cock)
Lincoln Sullivan
>minimize pissing muslims off any further appeasement never works. You're not addressing the problem.
Luis Thompson
>Hey guys maybe we shouldn't destroy Iraq and Syria, two secular nations that actually protect all their citizens equally....
>YOU DON'T WANNA DESTROY THE MIDDLE EAST?! YOU SOME KIND OF APPEASER, BRO?!
Asher Miller
Well, Trump is sucking Saudi cock big-time. Putin? Not so much as we're seeing how he and Iran are fucking their mercs and army up.
Camden Morgan
Reminder that we should've invaded Saudi after 9/11 and not Afghan/Iraq.
Hunter Cox
This. The only real solution is total victory.
Jaxson Howard
Lol didn't read
Blake Hill
Blowback against Sweden? This is horseshit. Muslims kill us because we are a weak culture of dirty kuffar. Filled to the brim with selfhating traitors who will explain away their cultural war on their benefactors.
Owen Sanchez
Muslims weren't as insane 50+ years ago when you didn't have the USA and Israel killing Muslim civilians left and right, and then having the Saudis fund Wahhabism as well
Jason Hill
NO MUSLIMS NO ISLAMIST TERROR
IT'S THAT SIMPLE
Fucking "debate" my ass. It's just cocksucking liberals. Send them to Middle East.
Grayson Green
> After all, Japan, for example, which is not exactly an exemplar of Islamic values, has never been attacked by Islamic extremists That's just stupid - Japan doesn't have fucking muslims
Aiden Thompson
They were. They were just killing each other and others far away from us. We have been in constant war with them for 1400 years. Now we have imported the enemy so he is all around us and we have stopped fighting back.
Ryan Long
Girl on left yes pls. Girl on right saggy bags.
Nolan Nelson
Faggot confirmed.
Thomas Gutierrez
Saggy tits lover.^
In a year they'll be hanging by her belly button.
Christopher Roberts
>in X years not now get your sour grapes shit out of here
Colton Johnson
Oh yeah let's just calm the Muslims down and twiddle our thumbs while they outbreed us and take over our countries in 100 years, great idea.
Brody Kelly
Secular immigrants only.
Gavin Sanders
>Japan Sexual deviants but have a right wing culture and no muslims >South America Will how violent and savage South America is it's impossible to tell whether the person was beheaded for not being Muslim or because he stole his neighbor's chicken
Parker Wright
So what this fag is saying is that we need a final solution, basically what we all knew.
Owen Gray
No there is a very simple and even palatable solution:
1) require all mosques to be in native language, and monitor them 2) allow 'at-will' deportation without trial for any foreigners 3) declare the islamic state (and all brands of militant islam) a foreign military and anyone pledging allegiance or supporting it gets shot on sight for treason 4) hang extremist immams 5) automatic deportation of family for jihadis 6) internment camps for muslims if all else fails.
This is very possible and a guaranteed solution to the problem. The only thing lacking is the stomach in the generally weak population.
Blake Adams
Go ahead and read up on the founding fathers and Islam. Believe it was Jefferson and Franklin who were both stunned at how Muslims would kill non-believers for nor reason. This is nothing new; globalization has simply exported world-wide.
Asher Mitchell
Why do these always beat around the bush and never confront the problem? The problem is Muslims. No Islamic terrorist attacks can happen if there are no Muslims. Let them fuck goats and blow each other up in the desert
Liam Smith
Japan was attacked by an Muslim extremist - he killed the Jap translator of The Satanic Verses.
Early version of 9/11 plot was to blow up planes over the Pacific. That would have been a possible attack on Japan.
Asher James
Muslims behave much like niggers. Low IQ, high aggression, unwarranted pride, impulsive behaviour.
Basically they behave in herd like fashions where they all psych each other up into chimping out.
The sand niggers are slightly higher IQ so have more palatable reasons for doing the exact same shit: min wage jobs (if you're lucky), career criminal, rape, or terrorism.
Ryan Nelson
* The problem is communists. Without communists no CIA. Without CIA/Mossad no foundation for terror ("how to").
Alexander James
Well well, someone's butthurt
Samuel White
>the relationship between Islam and terrorism fake news, m8
Julian Hughes
Haven't several Japanese reporters been murdered by terrorists?
Eli Bailey
here's an idea shit for brains you kick them all out you wall off everything south of the Balkans and kill anyone going in or out just leave them to their own devices completely
Nathan Murphy
Hi neocon
Grayson Hughes
What a fucking shitty solution.
Hey OP. I have a better, more fool proof idea.
Deport all muslims from white countries, strip them and prevent them from getting citizenship and maintain a homogeneous.
Wow, so simple. Pissed off Muslims are irrelevant if they aren't on white land, which should be racially homogenous to begin with.
That's the important first step. Everything else comes after.
Leo Murphy
Says the "muh based muslims" the_donald faggot.
Our best interest isn't appeasing Muslims who hate us for being non-Muslims, its for the safety and protection of whites.
Chase Peterson
>Deport all muslims from white countries
How? How do you deport millions overseas to countries which could just say no?
Owen Perez
Who gives a fuck if they say "no"?
Connor Taylor
>the idea that “they hate us because we’re free,” i.e. because of our secular values and Western lifestyle, was not even worth considering ISIS fucking said it themselves recently. See "Why We Hate You And Why We Fight You" in Dabiq.
Ian Walker
that's what the ocean is for
Jaxon Nguyen
"British" Muslims are widely in support of intervention to topple Syria's government.
Luke Williams
Make life intolerable for them so that they self deport. Ban everything. The ones on the terrorism watch list get an express ticket to Saudi Arabia: SAS, boat, coast.
Jace Perez
Got any real answers instead of just being edgy 15 year olds?
Elijah Baker
>Hey guys maybe we shouldn't destroy Iraq and Syria, two secular nations that actually protect all their citizens equally....
That means supporting secular dictators. I'm fine with that, but neocons and faggy liberals aren't.
Jack Fisher
muslims also didnt have the means to fuck up anyone outside of their own region. the regions' new oil money funds all this shit now
Eli Fisher
When the Muslim world could match the West in in money and military ability, they were expansionist. Once they were outmatched and beaten back, they chilled out. Now that they have the money, and are shitting out babies like crazy, while the west is slowly dying, they are getting expansionist again. They are just doing it by stealth through immigration instead of an actual military invasion.
Juan Wright
>They are just doing it by stealth through immigration instead of an actual military invasion.
Just admit that the european countries got lazy as fuck wanting to pay good wages after ww2 and instead hired poor 3rd world nation guys pennies to the euro, its not any more complicated than that, and now they stream here because of the free generous welfare
Logan Stewart
So let me see if I have this straight, the tl;dr of this is it's not "Western values" but retaliation for interventionism and regime toppling in the Muslim world?
So does that mean by Trump helping to create the "Nato of the Middle East" to meet out it's own stability, provided Kushner's kike ass doesn't force his hand into meddling in the Middle East, that we may see an end to radical Islam within our lifetime due to "leaving them alone"? I find this very hard to believe it's that easy, I don't think that strategy is a big enough ladder to get us out of this hole we dug if that's the case.
Zachary Clark
the whole argument went awol with the japan and south america example it's not they don't want to attack those countries it's that they can't, because they've been successfully blocked, or they're not appealing as targets US/Europe are the targets because we're the epitome of Western values we're easy targets loose immigration policies 5th liberal column aiding from within > to minimize pissing off muslims you don't get it it's the other way around muslim terrorist are playing with fire demographically, islam could succeed with violence, they will lose, badly, with genocidal consequences the accumulated West war machinery will annhiliate anyone that goes too far
Christian Green
The wealthy ruling class want immigration for that reason. By increasing the supply of labor they can reduce wages. They were able to fool low income liberals into going along with mass 3rd world immigration by making them fearful of being called a racist for not wanting to turn their countries over to shitskins.
Muslim Imams have openly called for taking over Europe through high birthrates and immigration. The welfare only helps them in that aim, because now working Europeans are subsidizing their replacements.
Ryder Kelly
Theyre already saggy you fag
Aaron Taylor
No that's you. Immigration for shitskins has been pretty much impossible for nonrefugees in most of Europe forever.
Lucas Nguyen
stopped reading after "hurr durr Japan does get bombed so it must be foreign policy" Japan doesn't get bombed because they don't have any Muslims End of. No Muslims, no Islamist extremism.
Matthew Richardson
Of course. They want to genocide the Alawites and islamists to take over the country.
Leo Lewis
...
Angel Stewart
if there is a will there is a way
Jace Bailey
Itt: classic leftcuck capitulation and appeasement.
Traitors get walled first
Juan Kelly
Clearly, you haven't seen or felt saggy tits, these here are great tits.
Jason Thomas
>Japan, for example, which is not exactly an exemplar of Islamic values, has never been attacked by Islamic extremists. South America has proved similarly immune
Japan outlaws islamic preaching in public. As for south america, they are beggining to get here. It's not looking good.
Muslims are savage pigs and you're full of shit.
Kayden Harris
Stop being a limp wristed coward?
If women didn't vote, we'd fix this problem in a matter of weeks. But then, we'd never have had it to begin with.
Eventually tensions will rise to the point of open violence in the streets and only escalate from there.
But then, that may have always been the plan.
You'll likely see it first hand.
William Cooper
who are these lusty busties?
Zachary Nelson
We're going to turn the Saudis into >Ottoman Empire 2.0 They're already about to push Qatars' shit in, currently blowing shit up in Yemen, and are actively interfering in all other Muslim countries and diaspora world wide.
Zachary Cox
They're getting their ass kicked in Yemen, they have to employ outsiders to fight their wars, that's why you can see a lot of dead niggers in Yemen nowadays.
HOW ABOUT YOU FUCKING SAUCE US INSTEAD OF MAKING US READ THIS LONG BULLSHIT
Zachary Perez
I think you've stumbled upon the solution to all our problems.
Lincoln Smith
Here is some brutal honesty many people won't like.
Matthew Sanchez
something something systematic genocide
Every Muslim, recent immigrant or "native" should get thrown in a concentration camp and probably executed too.
Suppression is a way.
Colton Harris
Japan do have Muslims, but they're in a tight leash. China also have muslims, they're also controlled (not 100%, East Turkistan is a thing) so why does ISIS doesn't attack them ? Why does ISIS doesn't attack Russia, who's fucking them up ? Because the muslims population is too low for an uprising or cause a civil war. I mean, think about this for a sec., Russia is fighting with Assad since '15, the attacks ISIS have done on Russian soil are irrelevant compared to Russia's actions in Syria. What has France done in Syria ? Dropped a few bombs from fighter jets after the attacks on French soil, deploying artillery for Mossul and giving supplies to the FSA (We even gave them WWII guns such as the MAS36 ffs), maybe some military adviser. Now compared that to how Russia is giving support to Assad with bombing runs from Jets and Bombers, Helicopters support, materials, vehicles and weapons...etc. Compare this to the UK or Germany actions. Doesn't had up.
Joseph Edwards
No arguments from me, op, but then I'm a Muslim and it seems only I can comprehend very obvious fucking points like these.
Jackson Howard
That's why we're selling them hundreds of billions $ worth of arms and tech. And likely helping train them.
Samuel Watson
found the underage
Gavin Gray
Religion is retarded.
Yours is doubly so and genuinely evil.
If you're a real muslim, gtfo or kill yourself. If not, stop calling yourself one.
I'm not stupid enough to call myself christian when I don't buy into the delusion or attend church. Walk the walk of your prophet or wake the fuck up.
Aiden Cooper
>Religion is retarded. *tips fedora*
Asher Ramirez
It's only a matter of time before white males become the terrorists. I don't mean isolated incidents, I mean ISIS-style military nations and Al Qaeda-esque groups.
Honestly not sure how I feel about all of it.
Jace Brooks
>expecting Sup Forums to react well to a nuanced article that advocates for a third-position solution to a policy issue instead of the standard conservative one
ya dun goofed op
Juan Sanders
good post
Benjamin Walker
M'lady.
Yeah sure. No, theyre saggy.
Joseph Reyes
>big = saggy
faggot
Angel Diaz
Fuck no you virgin faggot. Even some saggy tits are fucking great at the feeling.
Dylan Murphy
>Third position solution >Only white Western countries are obligated to pay for their past transgressions so the best thing we can do is continue importing third worlders from Muslim countries at a historic pace and just hope they stop murdering our children at pop concerts >Also even mentioning there is a problem is off the table since it may cause otherwise completely innocent Muslims to slip and fall and become radicalized
Hmm sure sounds like a solution to me. Totally different from the current liberal strategy.
Logan Young
The japan stuff is bullshit those ISIS monkeys beheaded those jap journalists for no reason other than they were there
And they say all the time in their propaganda videos how Japan was helping the coalition by giving them humanitarian aid
Radical Islam is a fucking cancer but it's not this purely reactionary thing that was only birthed from US intervention. Radical Islam has been around forever because it's a core tenent. What you're seeing in those "peaceful secular Muslims" like the Shiites is a bastardization of true Islam. These faggots have been bombing and killing nonbelievers since Ottoman Times, and yes not just in the Middle East too but also in Europe, China, India, basically anywhere they come into contact with nonbelievers
If you really believe we the USA is the source of this problem (we're not) then that's fine but stop acting like a bitch when we eradicate muslims in the first place and place travel bans on them
This problem has a solution and we can do something about it immediately but you're acting like we can't
Gabriel Ortiz
The author should maybe consider that the "Muslim world" exists because Muhammed and his followers slaughtered anyone who was there and didn't bow to Islam.
Sahih Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Julian Richardson
nowhere in that article does he advocate continued mass immigration
In the very beginning of the article he talks about how it's stupid to pretend that Muslims don't present more of a thread than Presbyterians
Benjamin Peterson
People say they kill us because we kill them But if you were made at a country because they were bombing you would you kill random civilians or would you kill politicians? They just hate us
Henry Lewis
>Pre-ww2 US does not intervene in middle east >no attempted attack on us mainland or overseas property >Post-ww2 US intervenes in middle east >attempted attacks on us mainland and overseas properties
really wets my whistle...
Julian Scott
pretty much this.
They hear they can get free welfare/healthcare/housing without having to work, rape as many young vaginas as they can dream of and then when they get bored they can martyr themselves in a blaze of holy glory.
It is more of a flaw in policy + flaw in their religion combining to create this phenomenon. The weakness of the West combined with their theories of Jihad and righteous death.
Nathan Hughes
Why do you still deny that the u.s is involved with the caliphate?? Next thing you'll tell me Israel has nothing to do with it. Even after everything we've seen so far? When will you get your head out of your ass and stop drinking that soda.
Aiden Martinez
>After all, Japan, for example, which is not exactly an exemplar of Islamic values, has never been attacked by Islamic extremists. South America has proved similarly immune. Could it be that there are no Muslims there? Truly fires up my neurons
Justin Torres
Pretends to be a realist. But is actually just a defeatist or worse traitor or propagandist. The end game is clear in Islam win, I for one want to win more & on no one else terms other than FREE MEN, FIGHT LIKE FREE MEN. So fuck this faggot.
Thomas Lopez
Go learn about the Barbary Pirates then come here talking that huff shit
Joshua Walker
What you mean involved
We are about as involved as we are with everything else
We still kill more Muslims than anyone else
I guess it's our fault then cus if we kill our enemies they win :'(
Camden Morgan
>Both views are simplistic nonsense. Furthermore, neither offers an effective policy to deal with the problem as defined. There would be no problem if we slaughtered every single last one of them.
