Inflating the Threat of Radical Islam

Steve Chapman | September 17, 2007

When the Cold War fizzled out, Americans rejoiced. Our long standoff with the Soviet Union, shadowed by the specter of nuclear war, was over, and the West had prevailed. What wasn't clear then was that many Americans would miss something about that era: the sense of being part of a historic, existential struggle between global forces of good and evil, in which we were on the right side.

The collapse of the Soviet empire deprived us of what had been a central part of our political identity. Since the end of World War II, America had stood in the forefront of opposition to communism. That opposition helped defined us, and its disappearance left a void.

In 1989, conservative intellectual Francis Fukuyama lamented what lay ahead: "The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands."

Most of us soon got over the feelings of drift. But some people have dealt with the loss in another way—by casting themselves in a grand revival of Armageddon. In this case, it's a titanic war against radical Islam, which, as the alarmists tell it, often sounds like a war between Islam and the West.

This enemy, we are told, is the heir of communism and Nazism, which President Bush often invokes to justify staying in Iraq. In this year's State of the Union address, he said, our foes "want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology."

Norman Podhoretz, an adviser to Rudy Giuliani, titled his new book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. (No, you didn't sleep through World War III—that was the Cold War.) He says, "The stakes are nothing less than the survival of Western civilization, to the extent that Western civilization still exists, because half of it seems to be committing suicide." By that, he seems to be referring not just to terrorist groups but also to the proliferation of Muslims in the West, which many conservatives see as a mortal peril.

But to equate our current challenges with the Nazis and Soviets is to grossly misunderstand our enemies. Start with Saddam Hussein, who was often compared to—though his army, quite unlike the Wehrmacht, dissolved on contact with the U.S. military. His Iraq was secular, not Islamist, and if he posed a danger, it was to his neighbors, not Western civilization.

Osama bin Laden must rejoice to be depicted as endangering our entire culture and way of life. In fact, his movement has failed to gain power in a single country even in the Islamic world, and he hasn't been able to carry out an attack on American soil in over six years. His movement exists today as a fragmented network of terrorist cells, with only a modest capacity to harm us.

Iran, with its fire-breathing president and nuclear ambitions, is supposed to be a looming threat to our existence. But as the world's only superpower, we can easily contain and deter even enemies with nukes—which is why no one talks about fighting World War IV against North Korea.

The vision of a monolithic Islamic movement hostile to everything we value is equally warped. We usually associate the religion with Arab militants, but the world's biggest Muslim populations are in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and Nigeria, not the Middle East. Some Muslim countries, such as Turkey, Indonesia and Senegal, are free and democratic. The others vary greatly in political openness and personal liberty—sort of like non-Muslim countries.

Most Muslims are not terrorist sympathizers. A recent Gallup poll found that only 7 percent of the world's Muslims regard "the 9/11 attacks as completely justifiable and have an unfavorable view of the United States."

Radical Islamic elements pose a danger to our security that will demand vigilance, resources and, in some instances, military action. But let's not make it more than it is.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Anonymo the Anonymous|9.16.07 @ 10:43PM|#

Good article, though clearly the title should have been "DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

|9.16.07 @ 11:11PM|#

If the government doesn't have a boogeyman to frighten us with, how will they justify their actions?

I am quite sure if every Muslim extremist was to renounce terrorism tomorrow, the government would dream up something to frighten us with on the day after.

|9.16.07 @ 11:14PM|#

I am quite sure if every Muslim extremist was to renounce terrorism tomorrow, the government would dream up something to frighten us with on the day after.

OMG DRUG EPIDEMIC!

That would be it.

|9.16.07 @ 11:18PM|#

Norman Podhoretz, an adviser to Rudy Giuliani, titled his new book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.

Its really sick how some people have to have an eternal ideological enemy for their lives to have any meaning. The fact that hes an adviser to Benito just confirms my previous views of Giuliani.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.16.07 @ 11:52PM|#

Does Chapman teach at UCSD?

|9.17.07 @ 12:53AM|#

Its really sick how some people have to have an eternal ideological enemy for their lives to have any meaning.

The great thing about being one of us libertarian types is that we can always fall back to our own government for this need to be satisfied.

|9.17.07 @ 9:14AM|#

OMG DRUG EPIDEMIC!

That would be it.

Nope. OMG! Radical atheists! They're warring on our Christmas!

|9.17.07 @ 9:18AM|#

The great thing about being one of us libertarian types is that we can always fall back to our own government for this need to be satisfied.

Yeah! Unless they actually let us have, you know, freedom and stuff.

|9.17.07 @ 9:36AM|#

When they come to your church to cut your head off, I would love to be there to tell you "I told you so". Knucklehead.

|9.17.07 @ 9:44AM|#

In fact, (bin Laden's) movement has failed to gain power in a single country even in the Islamic world

Well, there was the Taliban in Afghanistan.

|9.17.07 @ 9:51AM|#

What strikes me about this new enemy the Right is...well, not making up, exactly, and building up...is how incredibly flexible their perception of it is.

Sometimes it's a Clash of Civilizations, East vs. West (barely hiding the agenda of Christendom vs. Dar el Islam). Sometimes it's a clash of ideologies, with us liberating "good" Muslims from leaders with a totalitarian ideology. The former allows the definition to be stretched to include non-Islamists, such as Saddam Hussein and the Assad clan, while the latter allows the definition to be stretched to include Keith Ellison.

I remember, shortly after 9/11, National Review - Your Source for All Things Wingnut - running a blog piece about an article in the French Press about anti-Semitism in France. The blog post was titled "No One Here But Us Frenchmen," the the blogger was unhappy that the article didn't single out Muslims as the cause of the anti-semitism. This was when they were pushing the "Christendom vs. Islam" line.

Fast forward to the summer of 2002, and an article appeared in the French press about anti-semitism among French Muslims. Same author, same NRO blog, but this time she was complaining that the article pawned off anti-semitism on the Muslims, instead of using a broad-brush denunciation of French society. This, of course, was when the French were getting in the way of our great ideological battle against totalitarianism in Iraq.

|9.17.07 @ 10:18AM|#

I am quite sure if every Muslim extremist was to renounce terrorism tomorrow, the government would dream up something to frighten us with on the day after.

As Ingrid Bergman once said, "We'll always have China."

Well, there was the Taliban in Afghanistan.

They're an offshoot of the Deobandis, not Salafists/Wahabbis.

|9.17.07 @ 10:22AM|#

Nope. OMG! Radical atheists! They're warring on our Christmas!

That would be The Winter Solstice Celebration. Get it (secularly) right, you Christifascists! ;-)

Marcvs|9.17.07 @ 10:31AM|#

National Review - Your Source for All Things Wingnut

joe, it's not the source for all things wingnut (on the Right). The Weekly Standard wears that mantle proudly as well.

|9.17.07 @ 10:33AM|#

"The striking thing about American Muslims is not how poorly they fit into a tolerant society, but how well."

To the extent that this is true, isn't it to America's credit rather than to American Muslims'? Isn't it BECAUSE the U.S. is a tolerant society? How well do infidels fit into, say, Saudi or Pakistani society?
Anyway, according to a recent Pew Research poll, only 43% of American Muslims think that Muslim immigrants should adopt American customs, and 60% place their Muslim identity above their American identity (www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/muslimamericanspoll.pdf.)

"[Bid Laden] hasn't been able to carry out an attack on American soil in over six years."

The threat doesn't have to come from any individual or an organization. It's ideological, demographic, and cumulative. For example, there are freelance sharia courts already in operation in Britain(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml).

|9.17.07 @ 11:12AM|#

That would be The Winter Solstice Celebration. Get it (secularly) right, you Christifascists! ;-)

We prefer a Festivus.

Nor do many of them yearn to stamp out our freedoms. "When asked what they admire most about the West," reports Gallup, "Muslims frequently mention political freedom, liberty, fair judicial systems and freedom of speech." The striking thing about American Muslims is not how poorly they fit into a tolerant society, but how well.

So, shouldn't the democratization of Iraq have been a cakewalk? Sorry, but that argument sounds remarkably similar to the argument used to justify going into Iraq.

|9.17.07 @ 11:15AM|#

... only 43% of American Muslims think that Muslim immigrants should adopt American customs...

The 2nd, 3rd generation muslims will be indistiguishable fron average Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Jewish citizens in dress and public behaviour. Will they be similar to other Americans in their political beliefs/voting patterns? Ask the Greek, Irish and Cuban Americans about that. My guess is probably not.

|9.17.07 @ 11:17AM|#

"The striking thing about American Muslims is not how poorly they fit into a tolerant society, but how well."

Just give 'em a place to wash their feet and don't make them drive anybody with a dog or a bottle of wine. Oh, and don't date their women, else they'll have to "honor" kill them. And don't make any pictures of their prophet or you'll need to have your thoat slit. And kill any apostates, athiests and homosexuals. There's a few more things (there's a book - which you should die if you don't handle right) but you get the drift.

|9.17.07 @ 11:18AM|#

60% place their Muslim identity above their American identity

Go into a Baptist or Pentecostal church and ask that question about faith vs. national identity. I betcha get similar numbers.

|9.17.07 @ 11:22AM|#

There's a few more things (there's a book - which you should die if you don't handle right) but you get the drift.

Read the bible if you want to peruse some intolerant shit! It ain't like the Koran's got a monopoly on this nonsense.

No, I'm NOT defending Islamic faith, but people who live in glass houses...

|9.17.07 @ 11:34AM|#

"It ain't like the Koran's got a monopoly on this nonsense."

Yeah, but hardly anybody keeps slaves anymore except Muslims, slavery being one small example of bible-justified behavior which was left behind as the christians became more civilized.

|9.17.07 @ 11:41AM|#

Yeah, but hardly anybody keeps slaves anymore except Muslims, slavery being one small example of bible-justified behavior which was left behind as the christians became more civilized.

There are "Christians" in sub saharan Africa killing witches. They are turn small children out into the cold, cruel world for the same reason. Any Christians here at H&R want to take responsibility for that?

|9.17.07 @ 11:47AM|#

Good article overall. I agree alot with the last two lines. You mention that only 7% of Muslims worldwide thought 9/11 was justified. I agree that this shows how most Muslims are at peace with the US. Still, 7% is about 70 million people. It might be time to declare peace with pot so we can focus diplomatic efforts on that 7%.

|9.17.07 @ 11:53AM|#

That "killing witches" thing was a big mistake based on a mis-translation. It was supposed to be "poisoners" not "witches".

I would suppose that the chistians in Africa have a bit of the old-time religion mixed in to their practices.

As an apostate athiest I really can't "take responsibility for that"

|9.17.07 @ 12:04PM|#

Any Christians here at H&R want to take responsibility for that?

I, like KenK, am not a Christian, but I do support the burning of witches and all other forms of necromancer.

|9.17.07 @ 12:05PM|#

No, KenK, but you aren't trolling threads denouncing Christians because of it, are you?

|9.17.07 @ 12:10PM|#

"""For example, there are freelance sharia courts already in operation in Britain"""

That would never happen here. Cut some guy's hand off and your going to Prison. Unless they disguised the Sharia court as a Home Owners Association.

|9.17.07 @ 12:17PM|#

Freelance sharia courts = civil mediation services that people can choose to settle their cases if both parties agree, instead of using a regulation mediation service.

Not quite ready to stock up on rubber sheets. Sorry.

|9.17.07 @ 12:22PM|#

No, KenK, but you aren't trolling threads denouncing Christians because of it, are you?

You're absolutely correct joe. I should be denouncing, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Astrology believers, animists, Copts, and all the other religions. I should never denounce the irrationality of Christian theology, or the evil that has been done, and is continuing to be done, in it's name. Teh JEEZUS baby might get upset.

Feel free to make fun of, or denounce this atheist anytime.

|9.17.07 @ 12:48PM|#

The 2nd, 3rd generation muslims will be indistiguishable fron average Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Jewish citizens in dress and public behaviour. Will they be similar to other Americans in their political beliefs/voting patterns? Ask the Greek, Irish and Cuban Americans about that. My guess is probably not.

I have read of polls that actually reveal that the opposite is occuring in Islamic communities, and even from a source I know within an Islamic community. Apparently, some of the elders are actually worried, because their kids are becoming more radicalised.

I am in Britain, just outside London, btw.

|9.17.07 @ 1:21PM|#

I denounce J sub D.

On the grounds of OMG OMG STALIN MAO STALIN ROBESSPIERRE MAO MAO STALIN!

Also, your mother was a hampster, and your father smelled of elderberries.

|9.17.07 @ 1:23PM|#

The unique threat from the Islamists is that a signficant part of the movement (for lack of a better word) is undeterable, unlike most, if not all, state actors (although given his public ruminations of the apocalypse, perhaps Ahmidinejad falls outside of this category). There can be little doubt that an al Qaeda-type outfit obtained a WMD, it would not hesitate to use it.

So the threat is very real. (9/11 was the single bloodiest day on American soil since Antietam). Of course, whether we deal with it by a large and lengthy mobilization of the military is another question.

|9.17.07 @ 1:24PM|#

Lee Kelly,

The comment you quote was about the U.S.

There does seem to be somewhat a difference between Muslims in America and those in Europe - as in, the fringe of loonies is only tiny in Europe, whereas it is vanishingly small in the U.S.

I hereby declare that the difference is caused by precisely those distinct features of American society and government that are most in line with my pre-existing political orientation.

JBinMO|9.17.07 @ 1:37PM|#

I was thinking about opening a t-shirt company that made shirts with Mohammid on them. What do you think?

|9.17.07 @ 1:37PM|#

joe | September 17, 2007, 1:21pm | #

I denounce J sub D.

On the grounds of OMG OMG STALIN MAO STALIN ROBESSPIERRE MAO MAO STALIN!

Also, your mother was a hampster, and your father smelled of elderberries.

Thanks joe! I knew I could count on ya. This will raise my credibility at H&R considerably. ;-)

Seriously, if you read what I was posting in context, it was a defense of a religios people. I was contending that Muslims will integrate into U.S. society in the course of a generation or two. Please consider my "He who lives in glass houses" comments, in that vein.

Russell|9.17.07 @ 1:44PM|#

Er, Steve, this was all said in 2004, here :

www.amconmag.com/2004_12_06/article.html

|9.17.07 @ 1:46PM|#

Lee Kelly-

Thats because Europe sucks at assimilating immigrants.

iih|9.17.07 @ 2:01PM|#

And it is not like the 7% is grouping together into one single region. They are widely dispersed, which makes their threat even more diluted. But I am guessing (just guessing) that among those 7%, a small fraction of them will be willing to take up arms and fight with OBL.

|9.17.07 @ 2:35PM|#

But I am guessing (just guessing) that among those 7%, a small fraction of them will be willing to take up arms and fight with OBL.

But if we could just get all the ones that do to stand together in one spot for the flight time of a Minuteman III...

00
000000000000
0000000000
00
00
00
00
000000

iih|9.17.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Aresen: Just clicked on your link by mistake to find that you have a "telus" account. If you do not mind my asking, are you in Canada? (Telus is a Canadian telecom company).

iih|9.17.07 @ 2:51PM|#

But if we could just get all the ones that do to stand together in one spot for the flight time of a Minuteman III...

And that is exactly the problem. They won't do that. But when they do, they should be fought. But when they are dispersed, call me naive, but poor ideas are fought by better ideas. And that can be done.

|9.17.07 @ 3:04PM|#

iih

Yup. I'm a Canuck. Got the plaid shirt and duct tape to prove it.

Calling Telus a Canadian Telecom company is a bit like calling the Post Office s message service. I'm stuck with them for another 2 years. Unfortunately, their only competition is another highly protected monopoly.

I agree with you about the battle being one of ideas. I think there is a kind of Gresham's Law of the intellectual marketplace. When ideas flow freely, the good ones will drive out the bad. When ideas are restricted, the reverse happens.

|9.17.07 @ 3:09PM|#

I'm stuck with them for another 2 years. Unfortunately, their only competition is another highly protected monopoly.

OOPS, forgot to preview that one.

Telus is a phone company that provides a 'high speed' interet service. Their only internet competitor in what is laughably called the 'high speed' category is a cable company. Both are protected by the Canada Radio Telecommunications Commission.

*sigh*

iih|9.17.07 @ 3:20PM|#

Aresen:

I'm between Quebec and New England.

When ideas flow freely, the good ones will drive out the bad. When ideas are restricted, the reverse happens.

And despite ME governments to stiffle free speech, the internet and the satellite dishes ae doing a good job at freeing up flow of ideas. Right now it is like walking in the dark for middle easterners, but they'll get there eventually. What is not needed is any foreign intervention, let alone a military one like the one in Iraq.

By the way, now being Ramadan and all, I am watching on my Arab TV channel (available in both Canada and the US) some Arabic series. They are much more outspoken now than the time when I left for the states. One was on women rape. Another involves criticism of the ministry of interior's brutality in Egypt. While these do not show on the state run TV (I am only guessing), they are available on satellite networks, which are very very widespread in Egypt.

iih|9.17.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Should read:

And despite ME governments' *efforts* to *stifle* free speech

iih|9.17.07 @ 3:27PM|#

Aresen:

By the way, any good libertarian blogs/websites out there? I am aware of the Canadian LP website and the "Le québécois Libre". But very little else.

iih|9.17.07 @ 3:28PM|#

By the way, any good libertarian blogs/websites out there?

I meant Canadian ones, btw.

|9.17.07 @ 3:41PM|#

I'm between Quebec and New England.

Oh shit, a damned canuck lovefest. Right here at the venerable H&R. Little hockey players and sysup farmers will no doubt ensue. Crap, damn, fuck etc.

:+)

iih|9.17.07 @ 4:01PM|#

J sub D:

:-)) A while ago when others on H&R were asking me were I come from I usually said only Egypt and that currently I work in the states. I dropped the Canada thing, otherwise it would look really weird and phony. But, hey, here I am.

You'd better watch those Canadian illegals, too! :-)

Oh.. and I am perfectly legal in both countries. Just for the record and for those possibly listening in ;-)

|9.17.07 @ 4:03PM|#

J sub D,

I've given it some thought, and I would like to amend my previous statement:

OMG OMG STALIN MAO STALIN ROBESSPIERRE MAO MAO STALIN!

Also, your mother was a hampster, and your father smelled of elderberries.

Fatwa! Fatwa!

|9.17.07 @ 4:15PM|#

your mother was a hampster

Was she from New Hamshire?

(Sorry. Once I could repress, twice was too much temptation.)

iih

By the way, any good libertarian blogs/websites out there?

I meant Canadian ones, btw.

None that I'm aware of. Besides, I'd miss my American friends who post on this one. [Not to mention the Brits, Aussies, Columbians, Koreans, etc.]

iih|9.17.07 @ 4:19PM|#

Besides, I'd miss my American friends who post on this one.

Yeah... but Canadians are much nicer and more polite ;-) Just kidding my onlooking American friends.

Wow... a thread started off discussing terrorism ended up with a focus on Canadian libertarians. Makes the point that the whole terrorism thing is inflated.

|9.17.07 @ 4:41PM|#

Wow... a thread started off discussing terrorism ended up with a focus on Canadian libertarians. Makes the point that the whole terrorism thing is inflated.

Nah. Just the typical "Canadians meet someplace foreign, start talking about Canada and everyone else gets bored and goes away" scenario.

;)

iih|9.17.07 @ 7:17PM|#

I guess... see you around later Aresen. :-)

|9.17.07 @ 8:15PM|#

I am comforted to know that there are only a little over seven million muslims out there who think it's ok to blow up buildings and kill infidels.

GILMORE|9.17.07 @ 10:20PM|#

John Meuller's "Is there still a terrorist threat?" - Foreign Affairs, September/October 2006 is still one of the best pieces along these lines...

here tis...
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat.html

good piece though steve.

JG

|9.17.07 @ 11:26PM|#

In 2000, there were an estimated 520,000 murders committed world wide. It would take a lot of terrorist attacks to catch up with that.

The number of innocent people killed by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan far outstrips the 9/11 death toll. Our own troops are far more deadly than Muslim terrorists.

Try Brazil, 50,000 or so murders a year. Or try being young black male in South Bureau, L.A.

Muslim terrorism is real but the chances of dying that way are slim.

Use the money spent on TSA shampoo confiscators to hire a few more cops in South Bureau, and other places like that.

Mad Max|9.18.07 @ 4:21AM|#

You guys had a religion thread and didn't invite me? See if I invite *you* to my next witch-burning. So there.

Enver Masud|9.18.07 @ 8:49AM|#

The struggle between us and the Muslim world is for resources and markets. I call it a clash between justice and greed.

John Rohan|9.18.07 @ 9:37AM|#

I have reason to suspect your 7% figure is grossly misleading.

First of all, the link you gave for that survey doesn't give the full breakdown, nor does it ask how the question was exactly worded.

Second of all, the statement sounds a little contrived: 7% see "the 9/11 attacks as completely justifiable and have an unfavorable view of the United States."

Instead of "completely", what percentage see the attacks as "mostly" justifiable, or as "partially" justifiable?

If you added those in, I get the feeling that the number would skyrocket. It certainly was more than 7% of Palestinians who were cheering on that day; large numbers were celebrating in Britain, Turkey, and even Greece as well.

And here's another confounder. Only a small number of muslims think that Al-Qaeda did the attacks! Most think it was the Jews or the CIA. Look here, for example:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/25/MNGRQPEQJM1.DTL

JR

http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com

|9.18.07 @ 11:41AM|#

What utter nonsense.Has this writer ever visited a muslim country?I lived in the middle east for 23 years and knew back in the early nineties what kind of threat this so called religion posed.I become very angry when i hear western leaders refer to islam as one of the worlds great religions and how we should respect it.Who could possibly respect a cult that idolises death,proscribes beheading and mutilation for transgressors and stoning to death for adultery?Wake up you idiot.

|9.18.07 @ 11:34PM|#

John Rohan contradicts himself when he says that most Muslims think that CIA or Jews were behind the 9/11 attack and he also claims that a large number of Muslims justify or partially justify 9/11 attacks. In other words he thinks that Muslims support CIA and Jews, and justify their attack of 9/11. The 'Palestinian' cheering story has been proven to be a hoax. There is also a similar story about Israelis dancing on a pick-up truck and taking pictures of WTC.

Are dancing Palestinian enough of a reason to attack Iraq? and now onward to Iran and Syria. Stop this madness vote for Ron Paul.

|9.19.07 @ 1:01AM|#

"wonder if the Norman Podhoretzes of the world are a little off in their theories on terrorism."

Terrorism: Theirs and Ours
By Eqbal Ahmad
(A Presentation at the University of Colorado, Boulder, October 12, 1998)

In the 1930s and 1940s, the Jewish underground in Palestine was described as "TERRORIST." Then new things happened.

By 1942, the Holocaust was occurring, and a certain liberal sympathy with the Jewish people had built up in the Western world. At that point, the terrorists of Palestine, who were Zionists, suddenly started to be described, by 1944-45, as "freedom fighters." At least two Israeli Prime Ministers, including Menachem Begin, have actually, you can find in the books and posters with their pictures, saying "Terrorists, Reward This Much." The highest reward I have noted so far was 100,000 British pounds on the head of Menachem Begin, the terrorist.

Then from 1969 to 1990 the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, occupied the center stage as the terrorist organization. Yasir Arafat has been described repeatedly by the great sage of American journalism, William Safire of the New York Times, as the "Chief of Terrorism." That's Yasir Arafat.

Now, on September 29, 1998, I was rather amused to notice a picture of Yasir Arafat to the right of President Bill Clinton. To his left is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Clinton is looking towards Arafat and Arafat is looking literally like a meek mouse. Just a few years earlier he used to appear with this very menacing look around him, with a gun appearing menacing from his belt. You remember those pictures, and you remember the next one.

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a group of bearded men. These bearded men I was writing about in those days in The New Yorker, actually did. They were very ferocious-looking bearded men with turbans looking like they came from another century. President Reagan received them in the White House. After receiving them he spoke to the press. He pointed towards them, I'm sure some of you will recall that moment, and said, "These are the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers". These were the Afghan Mujahiddin. They were at the time, guns in hand, battling the Evil Empire. They were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers!

In August 1998, another American President ordered missile strikes from the American navy based in the Indian Ocean to kill Osama Bin Laden and his men in the camps in Afghanistan. I do not wish to embarrass you with the reminder that Mr. Bin Laden, whom fifteen American missiles were fired to hit in Afghanistan, was only a few years ago the moral equivalent of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson! He got angry over the fact that he has been demoted from 'Moral Equivalent' of your 'Founding Fathers'. So he is taking out his anger in different ways. I'll come back to that subject more seriously in a moment.

You see, why I have recalled all these stories is to point out to you that the matter of terrorism is rather complicated. Terrorists change. The terrorist of yesterday is the hero of today, and the hero of yesterday becomes the terrorist of today. This is a serious matter of the constantly changing world of images in which we have to keep our heads straight to know what is terrorism and what is not. But more importantly, to know what causes it, and how to stop it.

The next point about our terrorism is that posture of inconsistency necessarily evades definition. If you are not going to be consistent, you're not going to define. I have examined at least twenty official documents on terrorism. Not one defines the word. All of them explain it, express it emotively, polemically, to arouse our emotions rather than exercise our intelligence. I give you only one example, which is representative. October 25, 1984. George Shultz, then Secretary of State of the U.S., is speaking at the New York Park Avenue Synagogue. It's a long speech on terrorism. In the State Department Bulletin of seven single-spaced pages, there is not a single definition of terrorism. What we get is the following:

Definition number one: "Terrorism is a modern barbarism that we call terrorism."

Definition number two is even more brilliant: "Terrorism is a form of political violence." Aren't you surprised? It is a form of political violence, says George Shultz, Secretary of State of the U.S.

Number three: "Terrorism is a threat to Western civilization."

Number four: "Terrorism is a menace to Western moral values."

Did you notice, does it tell you anything other than arouse your emotions? This is typical. They don't define terrorism because definitions involve a commitment to analysis, comprehension and adherence to some norms of consistency. That's the second characteristic of the official literature on terrorism.

The third characteristic is that the absence of definition does not prevent officials from being globalistic. We may not define terrorism, but it is a menace to the moral values of Western civilization. It is a menace also to mankind. It's a menace to good order. Therefore, you must stamp it out worldwide. Our reach has to be global. You need a global reach to kill it. Anti-terrorist policies therefore have to be global. Same speech of George Shultz: "There is no question about our ability to use force where and when it is needed to counter terrorism." There is no geographical limit. On a single day the missiles hit Afghanistan and Sudan. Those two countries are 2,300 miles apart, and they were hit by missiles belonging to a country roughly 8,000 miles away. Reach is global.

A fourth characteristic: claims of power are not only globalist they are also omniscient. We know where they are; therefore we know where to hit. We have the means to know. We have the instruments of knowledge. We are omniscient. Shultz: "We know the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, and as we look around, we have no trouble telling one from the other."

Only Osama Bin Laden doesn't know that he was an ally one day and an enemy another. That's very confusing for Osama Bin Laden. I'll come back to his story towards the end. It's a real story.

Five. The official approach eschews causation. You don't look at causes of anybody becoming terrorist. Cause? What cause? They ask us to be looking, to be sympathetic to these people.

Another example. The New York Times, December 18, 1985, reported that the foreign minister of Yugoslavia, you remember the days when there was a Yugoslavia, requested the Secretary of State of the U.S. to consider the causes of Palestinian terrorism. The Secretary of State, George Shultz, and I am quoting from the New York Times, "went a bit red in the face. He pounded the table and told the visiting foreign minister, there is no connection with any cause. Period." Why look for causes?

Number six. The moral revulsion that we must feel against terrorism is selective. We are to feel the terror of those groups, which are officially disapproved. We are to applaud the terror of those groups of whom officials do approve. Hence, President Reagan, "I am a contra." He actually said that. We know the contras of Nicaragua were anything, by any definition, but terrorists. The media, to move away from the officials, heed the dominant view of terrorism.

The dominant approach also excludes from consideration, more importantly to me, the terror of friendly governments. To that question I will return because it excused among others the terror of Pinochet (who killed one of my closest friends) and Orlando Letelier; and it excused the terror of Zia ul-Haq, who killed many of my friends in Pakistan. All I want to tell you is that according to my ignorant calculations, the ratio of people killed by the state terror of Zia ul-Haq, Pinochet, Argentinian, Brazilian, Indonesian type, versus the killing of the PLO and other terrorist types is literally, conservatively, one to one hundred thousand. That's the ratio.

History unfortunately recognizes and accords visibility to power and not to weakness. Therefore, visibility has been accorded historically to dominant groups. In our time, the time that began with this day, Columbus Day.

The time that begins with Columbus Day is a time of extraordinary unrecorded holocausts. Great civilizations have been wiped out. The Mayas, the Incas, the Aztecs, the American Indians, the Canadian Indians were all wiped out. Their voices have not been heard, even to this day fully. Now they are beginning to be heard, but not fully. They are heard, yes, but only when the dominant power suffers, only when resistance has a semblance of costing, of exacting a price. When a Custer is killed or when a Gordon is besieged. That's when you know that they were Indians fighting, Arabs fighting and dying.

My last point of this section - U.S. policy in the Cold War period has sponsored terrorist regimes one after another. Somoza, Batista, all kinds of tyrants have been America's friends. You know that. There was a reason for that. I or you are not guilty. Nicaragua, contra. Afghanistan, mujahiddin. El Salvador, etc.

Now the second side. You've suffered enough. So suffer more.

There ain't much good on the other side either. You shouldn't imagine that I have come to praise the other side. But keep the balance in mind. Keep the imbalance in mind and first ask ourselves, What is terrorism?

Our first job should be to define the damn thing, name it, give it a description of some kind, other than "moral equivalent of founding fathers" or "a moral outrage to Western civilization". I will stay with you with Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: "Terror is an intense, overpowering fear." He uses terrorizing, terrorism, "the use of terrorizing methods of governing or resisting a government." This simple definition has one great virtue, that of fairness. It's fair. It focuses on the use of coercive violence, violence that is used illegally, extra-constitutionally, to coerce. And this definition is correct because it treats terror for what it is, whether the government or private people commit it.

Have you noticed something? Motivation is left out of it. We're not talking about whether the cause is just or unjust. We're talking about consensus, consent, absence of consent, legality, absence of legality, constitutionality, absence of constitutionality. Why do we keep motives out? Because motives differ. Motives differ and make no difference.

I have identified in my work five types of terrorism.

First, state terrorism. Second, religious terrorism; terrorism inspired by religion, Catholics killing Protestants, Sunnis killing Shiites, Shiites killing Sunnis, God, religion, sacred terror, you can call it if you wish. State, church. Crime. Mafia. All kinds of crimes commit terror. There is pathology. You're pathological. You're sick. You want the attention of the whole world. You've got to kill a president. You will. You terrorize. You hold up a bus. Fifth, there is political terror of the private group; be they Indian, Vietnamese, Algerian, Palestinian, Baader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade. Political terror of the private group. Oppositional terror.

Keep these five in mind. Keep in mind one more thing. Sometimes these five can converge on each other. You start with protest terror. You go crazy. You become pathological. You continue. They converge. State terror can take the form of private terror. For example, we're all familiar with the death squads in Latin America or in Pakistan. Government has employed private people to kill its opponents. It's not quite official. It's privatized. Convergence. Or the political terrorist who goes crazy and becomes pathological. Or the criminal who joins politics. In Afghanistan, in Central America, the CIA employed in its covert operations drug pushers. Drugs and guns often go together. Smuggling of all things often go together.

Of the five types of terror, the focus is on only one, the least important in terms of cost to human lives and human property [Political Terror of those who want to be heard]. The highest cost is state terror. The second highest cost is religious terror, although in the twentieth century religious terror has, relatively speaking, declined. If you are looking historically, massive costs. The next highest cost is crime. Next highest, pathology. A Rand Corporation study by Brian Jenkins, for a ten-year period up to 1988, showed 50% of terror was committed without any political cause at all. No politics. Simply crime and pathology.

So the focus is on only one, the political terrorist, the PLO, the Bin Laden, whoever you want to take. Why do they do it? What makes the terrorist tick?

I would like to knock them out quickly to you. First, the need to be heard. Imagine, we are dealing with a minority group, the political, private terrorist. First, the need to be heard. Normally, and there are exceptions, there is an effort to be heard, to get your grievances heard by people. They're not hearing it. A minority acts. The majority applauds.

The Palestinians, for example, the superterrorists of our time, were dispossessed in 1948. From 1948 to 1968 they went to every court in the world. They knocked at every door in the world. They were told that they became dispossessed because some radio told them to go away - an Arab radio, which was a lie. Nobody was listening to the truth. Finally, they invented a new form of terror, literally their invention: the airplane hijacking. Between 1968 and 1975 they pulled the world up by its ears. They dragged us out and said, Listen, Listen. We listened. We still haven't done them justice, but at least we all know. Even the Israelis acknowledge. Remember Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel, saying in 1970, 'There are no Palestinians.' They do not exist. They damn well exist now. We are cheating them at Oslo. At least there are some people to cheat now. We can't just push them out. The need to be heard is essential. One motivation there.

Mix of anger and helplessness produces an urge to strike out. You are angry. You are feeling helpless. You want retribution. You want to wreak retributive justice. The experience of violence by a stronger party has historically turned victims into terrorists. Battered children are known to become abusive parents and violent adults. You know that. That's what happens to peoples and nations. When they are battered, they hit back. State terror very often breeds collective terror.

Do you recall the fact that the Jews were never terrorists? By and large Jews were not known to commit terror except during and after the Holocaust. Most studies show that the majority of members of the worst terrorist groups in Israel or in Palestine, the Stern and the Irgun gangs, were people who were immigrants from the most anti-Semitic countries of Eastern Europe and Germany. Similarly, the young Shiites of Lebanon or the Palestinians from the refugee camps are battered people. They become very violent. The ghettos are violent internally. They become violent externally when there is a clear, identifiable external target, an enemy where you can say, 'Yes, this one did it to me'. Then they can strike back.

Example is a bad thing. Example spreads. There was a highly publicized Beirut hijacking of the TWA plane. After that hijacking, there were hijacking attempts at nine different American airports. Pathological groups or individuals modeling on the others. Even more serious are examples set by governments. When governments engage in terror, they set very large examples. When they engage in supporting terror, they engage in other sets of examples.

Absence of revolutionary ideology is central to victim terrorism. Revolutionaries do not commit unthinking terror. Those of you who are familiar with revolutionary theory know the debates, the disputes, the quarrels, the fights within revolutionary groups of Europe, the fight between anarchists and Marxists, for example. But the Marxists have always argued that revolutionary terror, if ever engaged in, must be sociologically and psychologically selective. Don't hijack a plane. Don't hold hostages. Don't kill children, for God's sake. Have you recalled also that the great revolutions, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Algerian, the Cuban, never engaged in hijacking type of terrorism? They did engage in terrorism, but it was highly selective, highly sociological, still deplorable, but there was an organized, highly limited, selective character to it. So absence of revolutionary ideology that begins more or less in the post-World War II period has been central to this phenomenon.

My final question is - These conditions have existed for a long time. But why then this flurry of private political terrorism? Why now so much of it and so visible? The answer is modern technology. You have a cause. You can communicate it through radio and television. They will all come swarming if you have taken an aircraft and are holding 150 Americans hostage. They will all hear your cause. You have a modern weapon through which you can shoot a mile away. They can't reach you. And you have the modern means of communicating. When you put together the cause, the instrument of coercion and the instrument of communication, politics is made. A new kind of politics becomes possible.

To this challenge rulers from one country after another have been responding with traditional methods. The traditional method of shooting it out, whether it's missiles or some other means. The Israelis are very proud of it. The Americans are very proud of it. The French became very proud of it. Now the Pakistanis are very proud of it. The Pakistanis say, 'Our commandos are the best.' Frankly, it won't work. A central problem of our time, political minds, rooted in the past, and modern times, producing new realities. Therefore in conclusion, what is my recommendation to America?

Quickly. First, avoid extremes of double standards. If you're going to practice double standards, you will be paid with double standards. Don't use it. Don't condone Israeli terror, Pakistani terror, Nicaraguan terror, El Salvadoran terror, on the one hand, and then complain about Afghan terror or Palestinian terror. It doesn't work. Try to be even-handed. A superpower cannot promote terror in one place and reasonably expect to discourage terrorism in another place. It won't work in this shrunken world.

Do not condone the terror of your allies. Condemn them. Fight them. Punish them. Please eschew, avoid covert operations and low-intensity warfare. These are breeding grounds of terror and drugs. Violence and drugs are bred there. The structure of covert operations, I've made a film about it, which has been very popular in Europe, called Dealing with the Demon. I have shown that wherever covert operations have been, there has been the central drug problem. That has been also the center of the drug trade. Because the structure of covert operations, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Central America, is very hospitable to drug trade. Avoid it. Give it up. It doesn't help.

Please focus on causes and help ameliorate causes. Try to look at causes and solve problems. Do not concentrate on military solutions. Do not seek military solutions. Terrorism is a political problem. Seek political solutions. Diplomacy works.

Take the example of the last attack on Bin Laden. You don't know what you're attacking. They say they know, but they don't know. They were trying to kill Qadaffi. They killed his four-year-old daughter. The poor baby hadn't done anything. Qadaffi is still alive. They tried to kill Saddam Hussein. They killed Laila Bin Attar, a prominent artist, an innocent woman. They tried to kill Bin Laden and his men. Not one but twenty-five other people died. They tried to destroy a chemical factory in Sudan. Now they are admitting that they destroyed an innocent factory, one-half of the production of medicine in Sudan has been destroyed, not a chemical factory. You don't know. You think you know.

Four of your missiles fell in Pakistan. One was slightly damaged. Two were totally damaged. One was totally intact. For ten years the American government has kept an embargo on Pakistan because Pakistan is trying, stupidly, to build nuclear weapons and missiles. So we have a technology embargo on my country. One of the missiles was intact. What do you think a Pakistani official told the Washington Post? He said it was a gift from Allah. We wanted U.S. technology. Now we have got the technology, and our scientists are examining this missile very carefully. It fell into the wrong hands. So don't do that. Look for political solutions. Do not look for military solutions. They cause more problems than they solve.

Please help reinforce, strengthen the framework of international law. There was a criminal court in Rome. Why didn't they go to it first to get their warrant against Bin Laden, if they have some evidence? Get a warrant, then go after him. Internationally. Enforce the U.N. Enforce the International Court of Justice, this unilateralism makes us look very stupid and them relatively smaller.

Q&A

The question here is that I mentioned that I would go somewhat into the story of Bin Laden, the Saudi in Afghanistan and didn't do so, could I go into some detail? The point about Bin Laden would be roughly the same as the point between Sheikh Abdul Rahman, who was accused and convicted of encouraging the blowing up of the World Trade Center in New York City. The New Yorker did a long story on him. It's the same as that of Aimal Kansi, the Pakistani Baluch who was also convicted of the murder of two CIA agents. Let me see if I can be very short on this. Jihad, which has been translated a thousand times as "holy war," is not quite just that. Jihad is an Arabic word that means, "to struggle." It could be struggle by violence or struggle by non-violent means. There are two forms, the small jihad and the big jihad. The small jihad involves violence. The big jihad involves the struggles with self. Those are the concepts. The reason I mention it is that in Islamic history, jihad as an international violent phenomenon had disappeared in the last four hundred 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 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 kaba (the 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. See what I was saying earlier about covert operations?

A second point to be made about him is these are tribal people, people who are really tribal. Being a millionaire doesn't matter. Their code of ethics is tribal. The tribal code of ethics consists of two words: loyalty and revenge. You are my friend. You keep your word. I am loyal to you. You break your word, I go on my path of revenge. For him, 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.

These are the chickens of the Afghanistan war coming home to roost. This is why I said to stop covert operations. There is a price attached to those that the American people cannot calculate and Kissinger type of people do not know, don't have the history to know.

Eqbal Ahmad, Professor Emeritus of International Relations and Middle Eastern Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, also served as a managing editor of the quarterly Race and Class. A prolific writer, his articles and essays have been published in The Nation, Dawn (Pakistan), among several other journals throughout the world. He died in 1999.
Courtesy: University of Colorado

John Rohan|9.19.07 @ 6:27AM|#

To masmanz, I didn't contradict myself. I never said "most" muslims supported the 9/11 attacks.

I merely pointed out that if you look at the 7% figure quoted in the article (the only reference the author uses), gives you a different take when you see that many Muslims think 9/11 was a setup in the first place.

Finally, something I forgeo to say earlier. If the threat of terrorism is so inflated, then who are we fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Each other? Even if you think of attacks against US forces as legitimate, what about the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods? I have served two tours there and by far, most killings in Iraq are Iraqi on Iraqi.

Finally, yes it's true that by the numbers, things like obesity kills far more people than terrorists. But the unsettling fear is that one terrorist group will finally get their hands on a virus or a nuclear weapon that will cause a mass incident in the future. Does anyone here have any doubt that Al-Qaida would love to finally get their hands on a nuke?

|9.19.07 @ 10:09AM|#

During the Cold War, I came to marvel the inventive hysteria, which at the mere mention of Communism regularly overtook many otherwise intelligent people in the West. Their fantasies about the Evil Empire never quite matched my experience of living behind the Iron Curtain. Instead of armies of brainwashed automations with seething hatred for the West, ready to swarm over Europe and then über alles, the people I lived amongst admired and envied the "Free World". They passively, but quite obviously, resisted the petty tyrannies of the authorities and stubbornly clung to ideas and beliefs, which were out of favour or even proscribed. Far from being ready to wage aggressive war against the imperialists, they were desperately trying to keep their decaying world together and when it got too much, as every now and then it did, they revolted violently against their masters. (On these occasions they usually got all assistance, short of practical help from the West.)

Now the West has another enemy and once again the fantasies abound. But this time they are even more hysterical and plainly even more idiotic than before. We now fear bedraggled Mid-Eastern escapees from the 10th century and disgruntled urban misfits with a grudge and a death wish. What the Soviets and 30,000 warheads couldn't accomplish these Gilbertian characters will apparently accomplish with relative ease mainly due to us not having a cop on every corner and a camera in every toilet cubicle. Perhaps we need more Steve Chapmans to remind us that a sense of proportion is a vital part of any civilized society.

|9.22.07 @ 11:23AM|#

|9.22.07 @ 3:45PM|#

It's a good article. The only thing is that the writer has apparently believed our governments official version of 911 events. Who was it that told us (sold us) almost immediately of WHO was behind the attacks? The very liars that still remain in the White House. After much research, I do not buy the official version one single bit. Not a word of it. I believe quite firmly who attacked us,and they were not Muslim 'radicals'. Quite the opposite. And had about as much to do with religion as Bush has with telling the truth. M-O-N-E-Y. Follow the money.

|9.23.07 @ 12:35AM|#

The author of the article is remarkably naive. The U.S. government investigated the mosques and ancillary Muslim schools in the U.S. financed in large part by Saudi Wahhabi oil money, and the texts and instruction are filled with enmity toward Christians and Jews, and foretell the inevitability and necessity for subjugation of non-Muslims in the United States by and in the name of Islam.

The suras in the Koran, were written in Mecca and later in Medina. The four Sunni schools and the Shia all teach that the later Medina texts supersede the Mecca texts. The Medina texts were written after Muhammed obtained power, and teach the most brutal conduct is mandated in emulation of "the perfect man who lived the perfect life," Muhammed. He preached and practiced brutal killing, genocide, torture, rape, and of course was a pedophile, who "married" a six year old child, but delayed deflorating her until she was nine years of age as she had earlier suffered a repulsive skin disorder. He was most considerate and allowed her to bring her dolls to the marriage bed.

The Hadith delineates the vile nature of Islamic doctrine in practice, and indicates that compliance with the injunction that mandates subjugation of all non-Muslims is necessary in the name of "Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate," as the bismilla declares. Non-Muslims within the uma, the community of Islam, which negates national boundaries, are to either convert, or be killed or live in dhimmi status subject to an extortionate dhimmi tax, deprived of all rights, and subsidiary to Muslim whims - in pursuit of their daily lives.

Islamic jihadist expansion took over Africa and the Middle East, from Turkey to Tripoli, and was repulsed at the gates of Vienna, and from Spain, portions of which it occupied for centuries. Islamic enclaves still exist in Europe as in Croatia and Albania.

Islam was in the doldrums for centuries because of the primitive mindset that attributed the Koran with all knowledge. Islam was insulated from the Western enlightenment. It's clerics are illiterate or semi-literate and their world view was limited to the Koran.

The statistics cited by the author are very misleading as the selectivity in polling itself is sufficient to skew results. Most of the Islamics are illiterate, and they mindlessly follow the dictates of Islamic thought as disseminated by the clerics. Other elites support the mission of Islam and its belligerency as evidenced by the nature of the perpetrators of the 9/11 outrage, who were neither uneducated nor poor. It is the mission, jihad, rather than poverty or deprivation that motivate the Islamics and propels them toward world domination. More than 90% of Muslims support the idea that Islamics should use any means available to subjugate the West.

Islam is penetrating Western Europe, and demographic trends demonstrate that their populations as in France, due to fecundity and immigration, will if they continue, make Europe predominantly Islamic. For Islam, democracy is a form to be shunned and a transient state to be used so that it can be replaced by Islamic theocracy, which preaches submission as the doctrine of its death cult, which as a commentator recently observed combines the promise of houris in Paradise with the joy of death to the point that it seems to be a celebration of necrophilia.

The reality belies the statements indicating that Islam is benign. Jihad was resumed as soon as the Muslim masses were exposed to scientific and technological progress in the West, and also procured oil money, which is used to support the expansion of the extremely belligerent Wahhabi sect, which worldwide is funding maddrassas and movements. This is in line with a promise that had been made to Allah by the head of the Saudi family if he would gain control of Saudi Arabia from rivals, his family would provide such support. The Saudis have complied with that promise.

The jihad conquered much of what had been the previously Christian world, where the Apostles trod and promulgated Christian doctrine, and subjected it to Islamic domination. The jihad has now resumed and Islamic publications worldwide proclaim the intentions of the movement, intentions which are validated by goal-oriented planning and actions.

The passivity of the West, and its unwillingness to acknowledge the Koranic mandated intentions of Islam, makes the West far more vulnerable, not only to conquest, but also in the interim to suffering great harm from proliferating nuclear weaponry and other weapons of mass destruction. Members of this islamic death cult, called a religion, are not only willing, but are anxious to die to kill infidels as an act of devotion and demonstration of piety.

Fortunately, in some countries the Islamics are controlled by military regimes, which are centers of secularist thought. Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan are in this category. We act to our detriment by criticizing these regimes, which hold the Islamics at bay.

The Western enlightenment is antithetical to the repression and suppression of thought and actions that characterize Islam. I wonder how some of those who trivialize the influence and actions of the Islamics think they would fare under sharia, under Islamic domination? Even now, Islamics have the temerity to issue fatwahs authorizing and rewarding the killing of residents of Western countries for offending them. The riots and killings engendered by the publication of the Danish cartoons, occurred worldwide. Now, a Swedish cartoonist and his editor are the subjects of a fatwah ratified by clerics, for recent publication of another cartoon. There is a $150,000 bounty for the death of either one of them.

Some Western countries have surrendered sovereignty by allowing disputes involving Muslims to be settled under sharia law in sharia courts. The West is coerced by threats of violence, which characterize Islam. The West is without belief in its values, and acts apologetic if it is challenged, rather than asserting that the values of the enlightement will not be abidicated to appease these Islamic primitives.

|9.23.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Sadly, most everything johnson says is right. The typical libertarian view of foreign policy is a noble one, with the degree of its nobility matched only by its triumphant clash with reality. The libertarian view, perhaps unjustly oversimplified, is that of "if we leave them alone, they will leave us be." This is the philisophy that has brought the West so much internal prosperity and hapiness. However, there are people, entire cultures even, that are incompatible with such a policy approach. There are people that want the West (for the very things we enjoy here, freedom being the most essential) to end. There are people with whom dialogue is almost impotent because to them any agreement or treaty is just another step towards their ultimate goal. Their ultimate goal is a goal they openly state, but for some reason many in the West refuse to beleive. Their ultimate goal is our destruction and/or subjugation to their beleif system. "Live and let live" is a beautiful philosophy. It turns quite ugly, however, when one of the

|9.24.07 @ 4:06AM|#

When I was about fifteen (a long, long time ago) I formulated the proposition that although communism as a social system was pretty bad, actually the worst thing about it was the kind of people and beliefs which arose to violently oppose it. Just enumerate a dozen or so notable anti-communists in history to see what I mean.

I fear that I may be faced with the same unpleasant proposition, this time regarding "radical islam". Reading some of the posts here I sigh in quiet resignation. We just never learn do we johnson?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements