| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks & Islam |
| Why Do They Hate Us? Not Because of Iraq |
| 2005-07-23 |
| While yesterday's explosions on London's subway and bus lines were thankfully far less serious than those of two weeks ago, they will lead many to raise a troubling question: has Britain (and Spain as well) been "punished" by Al Qaeda for participating in the American-led military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan? While this is a reasonable line of thinking, it presupposes the answer to a broader and more pertinent question: Are the roots of Islamic terrorism in the Middle Eastern conflicts? If the answer is yes, the solution is simple to formulate, although not to achieve: leave Afghanistan and Iraq, solve the Israel-Palestine conflict. But if the answer is no, as I suspect it is, we should look deeper into the radicalization of young, Westernized Muslims. Conflicts in the Middle East have a tremendous impact on Muslim public opinion worldwide. In justifying its terrorist attacks by referring to Iraq, Al Qaeda is looking for popularity or at least legitimacy among Muslims. But many of the terrorist group's statements, actions and non-actions indicate that this is largely propaganda, and that Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are hardly the motivating factors behind its global jihad. |
| Posted by:NYer4wot |
| #16 Yes, the author of the piece is a frenchie, Olivier Roy; I do not know his work, but he's a frequently cited expert on islam and has written several books; while I don't see him as a true apologist, he's certainly not in the RB tone regarding islam and islamism, and is not likely anytime soon to criticize the Master Religion he's spent so much time studying. At least, unlike his buddy Gilles Kepel he didn't predicted the decline of radical islam a short while before 9/11. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2005-07-23 16:00 |
| #15 www.prophetofdoom.net the best piece of work on the Koran. Read this and there can be no debate, you will not ask why, you will know why. |
| Posted by: Nockeyes Nilberforce 2005-07-23 15:05 |
| #14 Kalle: Right. Leftists won't study Islam. One that I know refuses even to spend the 15 minutes required to read the jihad book of the Bukhari Hadith. Their hatred of America is so integral to their personality, that anything that contradicts their worldview, is treated as a harmful threat. www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html |
| Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-07-23 14:44 |
| #13 AzCat is spot on with regards to the hidden message and tone of the NHYT article. The Left is still trying to blame everybody and everything APART from Islam and Moslems. It can only work if Western intellectuals keep promoting an attitude of self-inflicted guilt (for colonialism, prosperity, individualism, freedom of expression, whatever excuse they seize on). The best antidote I have found is to say -- whenever someone says "we must understand them..." or "what is it that makes them..." or "but it can't just be their religion..." -- to say "are you seeking excuses for terrorism?" THAT will stop leftists right in their track. Then I close the conversation by stating that if they cared to study the Koran and history of Islam they'd know about the cause of it all: the violent, supremacist nature of that ideology. I haven't met a single leftist who has actually studied the bloody history of Islam. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-23 13:29 |
| #12 One other point. This article is a salvo in the left's new strategy for winning 2008: now that Iraq is looking like it might turn out okay, we won't criticize involvement there, we'll look at the nasty competitive policies of the fat cat GOP and show that they're responsible for terrorism. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-07-23 13:18 |
| #11 I agree w/ AzCat: this piece blames American cultural dominance, and globalization, for MAKING the alienated Muslims what they are. It's all due to global capitalism and American hegemony, see? Now, if he had said that many Muslim men who buy into the Arab sense of racial and religious superiority have the wind taken out of them when they come into the real world, well then the author would have gotten it right. That said, I do have some empathy for just how disorienting it is to come from a tightly knit homogenous society into the free-for-all that we enjoy. Hell, even the French and Germans have trouble keeping up. And we'd better not get too compacent ourselves - keep out good legal immigrants, put restrictions on research due to your own religious beliefs and after a while, the good work will be done by good people in other places. But overall, history is pretty clear: the best societies are ones in which there is a lot of personal freedom and people take individual responsibility for what they do and become. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-07-23 13:16 |
| #10 " . . . a sense of otherness in England" I think they just feel stupid. Because they are stupid. Agree with Vlad the Muslim Impaler--both in what was said, and in the name (heh-heh . . . ). The NYT analysis might be intimating what AzCat points out, but to me it seemed to be saying that they're doing this because well, they just want to do it--it's a violent men's "club" of sorts (if you can call them "men"), and will use any bitch-and-moan to justify it's membership and actions. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2005-07-23 12:41 |
| #9 Nicely done, Nyer4wot. We need to keep logic out there to slash through the self-doubting neurotic arguments of people like the Mayor of London, whose recent statements can only be seen as the logical conclusion of the belief: we deserved this. Did anyone see the PM of Australia with the media this week? He made much the same kind of arguments as NYer: point after point disproving this false notion that our actions and foreign policies caused these attacks. I would disagree on one aspect of your comments, though, NYer4wot. It isn't that no place has been accommodated for Muslims in England. It is rather that they themselves choose not to become part of Britain. That rag of a paper, the Guardian, recently proved that with a poll, in which Muslims complained that they have a sense of otherness in England while simultaneously asserting that they shouldn't have to integrate or assimilate with British society. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-07-23 10:45 |
| #8 They do not hate us because of anything we've done. They do not hate us because of what we are. They hate us because of what THEY are. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-07-23 10:15 |
| #7 I accept that they hate us. I also accept the Muslims are bent on world domination. The tool is terrorism. If the Muslims cared about the hatred and the destruction that their brothers and sisters are spreading, they would take care of the problem themselves. Since that isn't going to happen, it is going to be a long war. The religion contains a "bad seed." The Muslim culture is a culture of death. |
| Posted by: John Q. Citizen 2005-07-23 08:07 |
| #6 Hark! What's that I hear? The mellow sounds of goal posts retreating in the morning? Lest we forget, following 9/11 the jihadis were immediately described by the knee-jerk left as rabid dogs created, funded, and kept by the west who'd escaped their bonds and turned on their masters. Then we progressed through theories including: a fine sense of history on the part of the jihadis that caused them to be alarmed by the presence of modern-day crusader armies in their holy lands; jihadis as spokespersons for the oppressed peoples of (variously) Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., and now we come full circle to yet another theory that places the blame squarely on western society: [E]ven if these young men are from Middle Eastern or South Asian families, they are for the most part Westernized Muslims living or even born in Europe who turn to radical Islam. Never mind that they come from traditional Islamic families and backgrounds, that fact is irrelevant. And really really ignore the fact that the singular trait they all share is their faith in Islam. The only relevant fact is that the jihadis have generally spent time in the west therefore it is the decadent west that is to blame. [The jihadis] did not turn fundamentalist because of Iraq, but because they felt excluded from Western society. In other words, it’s not Islam that drove them to it; it’s the non-inclusiveness of western society that’s to blame. If only we tried harder! If only we were more open! More tolerant! Clearly what we need here is a new program! And perhaps a committee or conference! (Taxpayer-funded of course). It is also interesting to note that none of the Islamic terrorists captured so far had been active in any legitimate antiwar movements or even in organized political support for the people they claim to be fighting for. Look! We can prove the jihadi scum aren’t fellow travelers with we leftists! Nevermind that we share goals in common and that we support their movement fully. Just because we love, revere, and cheer them does not mean that they are like us. (So much for the inclusiveness of the left eh?) The Western-based Islamic terrorists are not the militant vanguard of the Muslim community; they are a lost generation, unmoored from traditional societies and cultures, frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations. Here, in the best classic New York Times style, the author never misses an opportunity to deny an inescapable conclusion: Jihadis who’ve spent time living in the west are primarily responsible for terrorist attacks in the west because they have the most solid motive and the best opportunity to involve themselves here. While, of course, completely and utterly excusing the religion that is fighting wars of aggression against nearly every neighbor it has on this planet. My guess would be that the author has been polishing this piece for some time while awaiting the first significant attack by Muslims born and raised in the west to trot it out in yet another attempt to deflect blame from the blame-worthy. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-07-23 05:55 |
| #5 "The Western-based Islamic terrorists are ... a lost generation, .... frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations."" When will OLIVIER (do I smell a frog here?) ROY and the NYT stop psycoanalyzing these bastards! and stop blaming us for what the Muslims do. |
| Posted by: Glereper Craviter7929 2005-07-23 04:36 |
| #4 Why I Hate Muslims: 1. they are the world's parasites, and contribute nothing to progress. 2. their founder was a vulgar materialistic, lying pedophile and pathological liar. 3. they reject the laws of Western Civilization, while they bring their pig pen ideology here. 4. they are incapable of accepting self-blame for anything, thus have zero moral restraint. 5 to infinity - no time now. |
| Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-07-23 02:12 |
| #3 "A NYT article that doesn't see to blame us. WTF?" Slow news day . . . : ) |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2005-07-23 01:12 |
| #2 An NYT articel that doesn't see to blame us. WTF? |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-23 01:00 |
| #1 Great article. Certainly the West's focus on individualism freaks Muslims out. They can't find a sense of belonging and affirmation within the definitions and social frameworks of the West. I saw this years ago among the Middle Eastern college students I knew. The whole situation of life in the West puts them in a bind-- no one really cares who they are or what they do. They are "unrecognized" and cannot find a landing place inside our cultural norms. It becomes an existential void for them. Also, there is a big problem with the wives of Moslem students wanting to commit suicide after a few months here because of sheer loneliness. In a lot of ways the men are a bunch of arrogant, whiney babies caught in a socia/culturall crisis that they don't take responsibility for. Personally, I think they should content themselves with their own male-to-male relationships and stop trying to impress Western men who don't, and never will "get it." Maybe then they wouldn't get so ANGRY. It'd be nice if they focused on meeting the social needs of their own families. The ones that grow up, or live permanently in the West are probably caught in the same challenging experience. Gotta say, they might feel like there's no point to working and making a living without the social commraderie they have among their own--especially since they do not value women and children highly. Interesting to ponder . . . |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2005-07-23 00:37 |