Harry’s Place has posted an article by someone named Amjad Khan. A quick Google search of this name tells me only that it’s shared with an Indian filmmaker and an obscure writer frequently featured on “muscular liberal” sites devoted to demonizing Muslims.
He starts his article with an imaginary terror attack in the year 2022, followed by the supposed absurd reaction from Islam’s alleged apologist brigade. Mehdi Hassan is of course featured, as the Muslim Harry’s Place most loves to hate while feigning nominal support for his “moderate” views. Post imaginary attack, the writer muses:
A combination of fear, denial and manipulation of the events for political purposes begins and before long the masses are disillusioned by the cacophony of voices.
I would argue that Harry’s Place and their fellow travelers themselves indulge in denial and manipulation of events for political purposes. The main purpose is to curtail Muslim political involvement in favor of the Zionist-Neocon-Eustan agenda. The real goal is to stop anyone who might undermine their dishonest political maneuvering by putting terror attacks in proper context.
There are voices that are fearful of speaking up about what they think is really happening, either out of fear of being deemed bigoted (in the case of non-Muslims) or due to pressure from family and friends (in the case of Muslims).
I really wonder how many people want to agree with Harry’s Place but cower in fear of being called a bigot. I don’t think there are many Muslims who face pressure from family and friends, unless those “Muslims” are of the token, Harry’s Place-approved variety.
This fear is often cowardice too, since we live in an age in which we like to direct our wrath towards targets that make us popular amongst friends and peers, like western governments, and so we can continue with the pretence [sic] that we are noble and brave as we challenge targets that don’t come with any negative repercussions.
Now we see a hint of the real agenda. We are not supposed to expose the role of unjust foreign policy, which would indict western governments. If you do point out this dimension, you are doing so not because you really believe policy is a factor, but because you are an Islam-apologetic scoundrel who has to wrap your diabolical agenda in brave and noble garb.
There are others that simply go into denial mode and don’t want to accept that we are in the midst of a jihadist insurgency, using an unhealthy dose of conspiracy theory to get through the crisis.
For the record, I absolutely do believe we are in the midst of a “jihadist insurgency.”
: a person who fights against an established government or authority
So-called jihadists are fighting both western governments (the far enemy) and their own autocratic dictatorships and Zionist overlords (the near enemy). I think that’s obvious, especially in light of the fact they say so themselves.
For some, jihadist attacks are simply not happening or are merely a backlash against decisions our governments have made, which again is much more comforting than the idea of a jihadist insurgency that seeks to destroy all non-jihadist governments and impose theocracy on societies around the world.
Is that really the goal of this insurgency? To impose theocracy, even in the West, where most people are not Muslims? I don’t think so. And even if that is the goal, how much of a threat is it really? When all the Muslims in the world put together are not able to overthrow the Zionist regime in tiny Israel, is it rational to think they are going to overthrow powerful nations in Europe and North America? It seems to me Muslims are focused on liberating their own lands, which in my view is their right, regardless of what sort of government they want to set up once foreign invaders have been expelled.
Finally, the worst of the lot are the manipulators that don’t really care to understand jihadist violence but use it as an opportunity to instigate public outrage against other targets that they despise for ideological reasons, namely capitalist governments.
Right up to the part about “capitalist governments,” Harry’s Place could be describing itself. Just replace the last part with “namely practicing Muslims and their allies.”
These manipulators are often far-left activists that masquerade as defenders of minorities yet harbour their own extremist agenda. The manipulators don’t stop there either; they even attack those that do seek to challenge jihadist ideology, deeming them Islamophobic western stooges.
What exactly is the extremist agenda of the far left that drives them to this alleged masquerade? Judging from what I read on leftist sites, it seems to me their “real” goals are transparent. The far left, and even their mainstream counterparts, appear to be exposing the West’s unjust, inherently racist policies in an effort to reduce this cycle of violence. I don’t view this as sinister, or extremist.
In the meantime, young aspiring jihadists continue to galvanise and spout their propaganda largely unopposed and in some case aided by a weak, fearful and cowardly society.
Is Western society really weak, fearful and cowardly when it comes to opposing “jihadists”? It seems to me there is an entire network of well-funded websites devoted to demonizing Muslims. The mainstream media in the UK is fixated on Muslims, and in the US, Fox News provides a direct conduit for hatemongers like Pamela Geller to reach the broader public. The so-called War on Terror has raged on for almost 15 years, demolishing whole countries. If that’s a weak, fearful, cowardly response, I’d hate to see the alternative the author has in mind.
Another symptom of a weak, cowered and disillusioned civil society is that the state has no option but to use legislation as the means to tackle the problem
I read this as a veiled confession. Harry’s Place is losing. The public is beginning to connect the dots, and that cannot be allowed. Despite all their crowing about freedom of expression, I think Harry’s Place knows their own extremist brand of pro-war, Zionist “muscular liberalism” is not faring well in the marketplace of ideas. They can’t win the public debate, so they will turn first to herding civil society through fear, and when that fails, to employing the apparatus of the state.
The article decries “Jihadism” as “ideology that seeks total domination of the world through aggressive force,” which once again is an apt description for the their own neocon-inspired ideology aimed at dominating the entire globe at gunpoint. Project much?
Jihadists are currently in the ascendency in Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen whilst their supporters in European countries continue to grow at a disturbing rate.
How will they be stopped?
It would be self-indulgent and Anglo-centric to seek comfort in the fallacy that jihadism is merely a response to aggressive and blundering western foreign policy in the Middle East and South Asia. Jihadism is a virus that certainly exploits geo-political developments for its own advantage but certainly doesn’t need them in order to grow.
Harry’s Place loves to raise and punch the “Islam has nothing to with it” straw man. Who is arguing “jihadism” is “merely” a response to Western foreign policy? The real denial is at Harry’s Place, where the foreign policy dimension is downplayed or denied outright, even when the so-called “jihadists” cite foreign policy as their motive. I agree Islam is part of it too, but I wouldn’t count on Harry’s Place to be the least bit honest about its role.
That is because it is not all about us. We have merely been dragged into an intra-Muslim war that has been waging, in one way or another, since the dawn of Islam.
The West was not dragged in. The West inserted itself, quite rudely, in the midst of Muslim-majority lands.
The first step towards rehabilitation is accepting that you have a problem. We need to start being honest about what jihadism represents and what drives young people to sign up. We need to start challenging and exposing the manipulators, ridiculing the denialists and galvanising the fearful.
I agree. The difference is I wouldn’t employ the absurd term “jihadism” and I would identify a different set of manipulators and denialists who are galvanizing the fearful.
Jihadism will be defeated eventually. Let’s just make it sooner rather than later.
Zionism will be defeated eventually, right along with Western Supremacist plunder, slaughter and domination. Let’s just make it sooner rather than later by relentlessly interjecting REALITY into this narrative:
…One of the Kouachi brothers, who shot up Charlie Hebdo, and Amedy Coulibaly, who shot up a Kosher grocery store, gave telephone interviews to BFMTV just hours before being killed by police raids. Kouachi stressed that he was motivated by United States aggression in the Middle East. His conversion to Jihad began watching the U.S. destruction of Iraq and photos of Iraqis being tortured by Americans in Abu Ghraib...~ France Under the Influence