Islam is not the root cause of terrorism. Injustice is the root cause.
Not only am I confident this is true, but I know it is plain and obvious for all to witness how true it is.
The fact that so many disagree with me is nothing more than a testament to the success of sophisticated propaganda. Self-serving lies those in power use to mislead and control their people; the masses.
Blaming Islam for terrorism is a way of absolving the real culprits while providing them with a pretext to continue their war crimes and theft. The whole thing is a scam.
But I don’t expect anyone to take my word for it. I want you to see this for yourself.
You can. There’s nothing I’m going to say that can’t pass a basic sniff test. Not if you’re remotely objective.
Truth is to propaganda what sunlight is to vampires.
My Parents Before Me
I’m a Muslim convert. That means some people are all the more likely to dismiss my statement as apologetics.
But my views on foreign policy and world events have always been exactly the same! My parents are the ones who shaped my views in my formative years.
They were nominal Christians, not Muslims, and yet my parents sounded a lot like “Muslim radicals” in their critique of American foreign policy.
How is that even possible? The answer is simple.
The narrative Western strategists are trying to promote is mostly false. Whereas the narrative they’re trying to counter is mostly true.
It’s not easy to convince people that up is down and black is white…and what’s very, very wrong is really what’s right. Yet that’s what the powers that be are doing.
Don’t take my word for it. Think about what I say here and decide for yourself.
If you want to understand, then you will. If you don’t, then no one can convince you otherwise.
Muslim grievances against the West boil down to one thing: injustice.
This sense of grievance and injustice cuts across sectarian lines. And encompasses all the different types of Muslims, Muslim viewpoints, and methods of engagement.
Injustice is the root of modern “terrorism.” A word that’s defined more by social conditioning than rational thought.
Many Muslims focus on trying to absolve Islam by correctly pointing out that Islam enjoins justice and forbids harming innocent people. It most certainly does, and it’s fine to say so.
Justice in Islam…
So reconcile between them in justice and fairness. Verily, Allah loves those who are just. ~ Surah Al-Hujurat 49:9
“O you who believe, be persistently standing firm for Allah as witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just, for that is nearer to righteousness. Fear Allah, for verily, Allah is aware of what you do.” ~ Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:8
The rights of every people will be restored on the Day of Resurrection until even the hornless sheep will settle the score with the horned sheep. ~ Sahih Muslim 2582, Book 45, Hadith 78
But I’m not going to make Islamic doctrine the main focus of my arguments. Because to do so means to tactically accept a false presupposition before we even get started.
Attack of the Cephalopods!
I love this metaphor and use it often. Cephalopods are also known as inkfish.
Marine animals who squirt dark ink to cloud the water and confuse their enemies. To me, this is exactly what propagandists do.
I’ve seen it with those who argue atheism and science over religion and faith; those who argue in favor of Zionism as it affects the Palestinians; and those who argue in favor of dictatorships and tyrants in the Muslim-majority world.
They obscure the truth in a sea of murky lies. Making things that are should be simple and clear (even to a child) seem complicated and skewed.
My mother was a master at debunking propaganda. She loved to wake up in the very early morning and watch raw news reports come in from on-the-scene correspondents.
Then she would watch the same news stories later in the day after the spin masters had done their work. It’s amazing how much of this is done in plain sight if you happen to be paying close attention.
She also liked to give people a good shake with a few carefully chosen questions. Because so often what we believe we’ve never questioned, and that’s as true for me as it is for anyone else.
For example, I was talking to a friend long ago I thought was Christian who suddenly said, “No, I’m a Muslim.” I was shocked. As if perhaps I thought a Muslim would have horns!
I was suddenly confronted by my own unexamined assumptions, which I had passively absorbed from the society around me. Prior to that moment, I’d had no reason to give Muslims much thought at all.
What unquestioned notions have made their way into your head? My mother would have probably tried to find out. 🙂
“Islamic terror” is the inky obscurant the Western imperial powers use to cover up their own misdeeds. This is what I believe, and this is what I’m going to argue, from a purely secular perspective.
Starting with the false notion that I’m the one whose views are “radical.”
Make Crumpets, Not War!
Wouldn’t it be awesome if we solved all international disputes peacefully over tea and crumpets?
Let’s have a tea party instead of a war. 🙂
If I ran the world, that’s how things would work. But sadly, in the real world, people resort to violence instead of tea parties.
Then those who know their violence is wrong but want to convince you otherwise weave tall tales. And lots of people believe them.
Never take war propaganda at face value. Because war is almost always based on lies.
Instead, ask yourself some basic questions.
- Who started the fight?
- What options are available to both parties?
- Who had a choice to begin with, and who still has one now?
Because questions are really powerful. And a lot of propaganda doesn’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
For some reason, when we think big, things get cloudy. Even without the “help” of an inkfish.
It’s a lot harder to fathom things that are completely outside of our own experience. So one approach to understanding the bigger picture is to scale it down.
For example, I remember when the pundits and politicians were saying the Iraqis would appreciate being invaded and bombed by the United States. Why would anyone appreciate that?
Yet they said with a straight face that one day Iraqis would sing great songs about us. They would welcome the Americans with open arms and shower our troops with rice and flowers.
They really said that. I remember writing to one of the neocons to tell him I thought that was utter nonsense.
I was surprised when he wrote back! He insisted he truly believed what he said, and I can’t say for sure whether or not he was lying.
They said the Iraqi people wanted “freedom and democracy.” Which we were willing to kill and die to install for them. Because we’re totally selfless like that.
Oh, and Iraq was involved in 9/11 and had “weapons of mass destruction.” Except those were lies.
How is it even possible for people to buy that ridiculous narrative? What if something similar happened in their own backyards?
It seems to me this would be far more relatable, and drive home the point.
Do You Like Home Invasions?
Let’s say, for example, that I’m your neighbor and I like your stuff. So I decide to steal it.
Of course, I don’t actually say that because that doesn’t sound noble. What I say is that you’re an insufferable tyrant who kicks your dog and stole everything you own from the poor working class people you’ve enslaved.
Or some such thing. Whatever I think people will buy.
Now let’s say that I invade your property and try to take over the whole place. Because I want it and think I can get away with it.
You’re likely to fight back. Right? Maybe you won’t fight back exactly like some other neighbor would if I did the same to them.
Some of the neighbors would try to shoot me. Others would just cower in fear.
But no one expects those whose homes I’ve invaded to be happy with me. Who really believes they’re going to sing me love songs and give me flowers?
That’s a load of nonsense and we all know it. Yet a lot of people will swallow exactly that same narrative, as long as it applies to a whole nation of people “over there.”
Where humans are totally different from us. And love foreign invaders who maim and kill them and steal their stuff.
…Then Extrapolate the Big Picture
Lots of governments want to dominate and plunder. Especially the ones presiding over large, powerful countries,
They don’t have any moral problem with doing things like that. Because they tend to function more or less like psychopaths.
They want to control other people’s lands and steal their stuff. The problem for them is that most of their own people (like most people everywhere) are not ruthless psychopaths.
If they were, then governments could just say, “We’re going over here to kill these people if they won’t let us take their stuff.”
Some people would be cool with that – sadly. But most wouldn’t. So what’s a government to do?
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
It’s a simple formula, really. You say that those guys over there…the ones sitting on all that oil… are bad. Really bad.
So bad they’re a danger to us. Maybe even to the whole entire world.
That country is run by an evil, Hitleresque dictator. A madman who is poised to kill everyone, including his own people.
He’s amassed weapons of mass destruction. And his people are all hankering for freedom and democracy that only you can bring.
So we shall bring order and justice to these poor, beleaguered people. Cue Toby Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue.”
You’re not supposed to notice if we actually brought the madman to power in the first place. Or if we’ve been friends with him for decades and sent him tons of weapons.
Stay in the current moment, okay?
So as I was saying, this evil madman who happens to be sitting on all this oil in this really strategic location is a bad, bad man.
Do you remember some of the bad, bad men America has had to deal with in recent years? Usually, Muslim ones who, best case scenario, have a big, bushy beard and look kinda scary.
Depending on how old you are or how fond you are of history, you may remember a few of the bogeymen du jour.
The Ayatollah Khomeini, Yasir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Muqtada al Sadr, Hassan Nasrallah, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayman al-Zawahiri…and so on.
That’s right off the top of my head. And I’m not even a daily consumer of the news.
Mean, scary Muslim dudes who were, at least for a time, the New Face of Hitler. Because everyone is literally Hitler when we don’t like them anymore (even if we liked them yesterday…because that was then and this is current moment…)
We need to blow up their entire country before these madmen blow it up themselves. Something like that.
Besides, we need pictures of smiling hijab-clad women celebrating their democratic freedoms. Isn’t it heartwarming to see them holding up those blue “I voted today” fingertips?
A large chunk of the public buys that nonsense. Not everyone, but enough of us that the government usually gets its war.
What Really Happens
The government then sends its soldiers to wreck the place. Because that’s what armies do. They kill people (and animals) and destroy things.
War planners know for certain they will kill, maim, and displace lots of innocent people. Sometimes they actually brag about how they’ll bomb their victims “back to the Stone Age” with their “Shock and Awe” campaigns.
They will claim that’s okay because they don’t deliberately target civilians. As long as you insist you don’t deliberately target civilians, then you’re never a terrorist.
Very convenient. How many people know that logic actually contradicts international law?
He Started it!
It really matters who started a conflict. Even children know this intuitively, which is why when they get caught fighting, they point fingers at one another.
He started it! She started it!
Why? Because everything was going along fine and someone did actually start something.
That is why there is a conflict. So the lion’s share of the responsibility goes to the person who started it.
That’s not just my personal opinion. That’s an idea enshrined in international law.
The Whole of the Evil
In the aftermath of WWII, a body of law dealing with war crimes and the Holocaust was decided at Nuremberg. One of the most relevant in my view is the finding regarding those who start aggressive wars:
Nuremberg Trial Proceeding
“War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent States alone, but affect the whole world.
To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” ~ Volume 22
Think about that. What does it mean “contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”?
That means that when the US invaded Iraq, one might argue the US is fully responsible for everything that happened as a result. Including the rise of ISIS, for example.
Not that ISIS is off the hook. It’s certainly possible to hold both the US and ISIS responsible for war crimes.
But the idea here is that aggressive war is the “supreme crime” above all others. And it’s something that can only be undertaken by a government.
Of course, that ruling was determined in 1946. In the intervening years, the UN has actually given aggressive wars and murderous, draconian sanctions a legal coating.
Thus making a mockery of their own role in enforcing or even upholding the spirit of international law.
Nevertheless, international law embraces the idea that it absolutely does matter who started it. So you don’t have to come from a religious point of view to understand this very basic concept.
A Crinkle in the Who
One problem with the “who started it” criteria is that it’s not always easy to tell.
For example, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks on America, a lot of people forgot all of history. It was as if the entire world was born on that fateful day.
Therefore “the Muslims” started it. All of them. And now we had a license to go after “them.”
Except that history didn’t start on that day. The Western imperial powers have been terrorizing others for a long time.
As far as Muslims, I would say the point of inflection was Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798. For the Muslims, it was all downhill from there.
For over 200 years, it’s been the West that’s increasing encroached upon Muslims. Not the other way around.
Now some will try to go back even further, and place the blame back on the Muslims. We can do this all the way back to Adam and Eve. But that isn’t going to get us anywhere.
So let’s think a bit smaller. Let’s take Iraq as an example.
What Did Iraq Ever Do to Us?
My mom loved to ask people, “What did Iraq ever do to the United States?”
The answer, of course, is nothing!
Yet the US started bombing Iraq in 1990 and has been variously bombing and starving that country ever since. For nearly 30 years now.
Some will say Saddam started the conflict because he invaded and occupied Kuwait. But for one thing, there is evidence the US gave Saddam Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait, and perhaps even goaded him into doing so.
Furthermore, the US took full advantage, hyping up the invasion and rejecting overtures aimed at averting war. The UN passed resolutionswhich the US immediately enforced through war.
But if that’s a reason to wreck a whole country, why didn’t the US do the same to Israel a long time ago?
Who Was Occupying Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria?
Even at the time when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Israel was occupying the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, Syria’s Golan Heights, and a part of Southern Lebanon. In fact, Israel is still occupying all but the last of those places!
To this day. But let’s spot critics that one anyway. Saddam started it when he invaded Kuwait.
Let’s also ignore all that stuff about how the US helped bring Saddam Hussein to power and long supported him.
Because again, stay in the current moment. And don’t think too much.
Then after the first round of bombing, US-led sanctions that even the West called “draconian” starved over 1 million innocent people to death. Over a period of 12 years.
End Sanctions…Resume Bombing!
Then the US invaded and started bombing again based on a series of lies. They implied Iraq had some role in the 9/11 attacks, and that the country had weapons of mass destruction.
Even at the time, if one asked a government official – they would likely admit Iraq played no role in 9/11 and that in fact, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were bitter enemies.
The Downing Street Memos proved that all along, both the US and the UK governments knew Iraq did not have WMDs. They wanted to invade, and so they did. The truth was a convenient casualty of war.
The Real Reasons are Undercover
We don’t know exactly why the US was so bent on invading Iraq. Theories abound.
Some say it’s because Iraq has oil. Though for as much money as we’ve spent on war, a case might be made for just buying the oil.
Some say it was to protect the petrodollar. Because Saddam Hussein had switched from the US dollar to the Euro for oil transactions.
Some say it was to make the world safe for Israel. Iraq was arguably that country’s most powerful rival, and Saddam Hussein was too pro-Palestine for their taste.
Some say we’re just bullies….
The Ledeen Doctrine…
“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” ~ Neoon luminary Michael Ledeen
Some actually believe America wanted to spread freedom and democracy. Which is silly when you know that America has overthrown over a dozen democracies over the years, and supports tyrannical dictators throughout this same region.
Or maybe America invaded to enhance its own interests at all costs. Interests best served by installing a compliant dictator.
I think the US probably invaded for a combination of reasons, the balance of which we’ll never know for sure. But whatever the actual reasons, Iraq is not free nor is it democratic.
It’s a violent mess. And if the US has its way, it will eventually be robbed and held hostage under some sort of puppet ruler.
Maybe as an outright strongman, or maybe with some veneer of “democracy.” But the important thing is that this puppet serves his master.
The puppet ruler will serve the West at the expense of his own people. Unless and until he gets too uppity and starts tugging on his puppet strings.
In which case the cycle will start all over again. Rinse, lather, repeat.
This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all the ways that the US installs puppet rulers. From color-coded revolutions to the fall of Qaddafi to the attempted coup against Erdogan, the evidence is enough to fill countless encyclopedias.
The Shoe on the Other Foot
One of the strangest consequences of 9/11 was that it didn’t open more people’s eyes to what’s actually going on.
America didn’t respond to 9/11 in a pacifist manner. In fact, America launched a so-called “War on Terror” and started bombing Muslims almost immediately.
This bloodletting continues to this very day, with no end in sight. See anything worth learning here?
America was attacked on one single day. Yes, it was a big attack and a horrible day. Yet the US has delivered 9/11 to Iraq many times over. Both before and after that one event.
Americans were outraged and furious, and ready to strike back at whoever attacked them. So how is it confusing that others want to strike back at us when we attack them?
Glaring Double Standards
Muslims need to respond as pacifists if we attack them. But we can unleash hell and make them swim in a sea of blood if they attack us.
I guess that’s a good deal if you can get it. But don’t be surprised when not everyone goes along with that lopsided equation.
Sometimes those your government abuses do actually strike back. Why don’t more people get that?
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, lots of people were asking, “Why do they hate us?”
The Answer You’ve Probably Never Heard
How many Americans know that Osama Bin Laden answered their question? He explained why Al Qaeda attacked America in his “Letter to America.”
The strange thing about that is hardly anyone published the letter. In fact, I wouldn’t even know it existed, except that the UK Guardian published it in full.
Ask yourself why this Letter to America was ignored by most of the media. Don’t the American people have the right to know why Al Qaeda attacked their country?
The List of Grievances
For a crazed, irrational madman, Osama Bin Laden was surprisingly organized and detail-oriented. He gave America a numbered list of foreign policy grievances.
Let me take some excerpts for you.
Letter to America
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
(after a long list of specific attacks….)
(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us…Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!…
(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves – and I doubt you will do so – to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.
(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.
(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.
(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.
(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.
If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for a fight with the Islamic Nation.
If you have time, please read the whole thing. It’s interesting.
I’ll tell you why I think the establishment suppressed the “Letter to America.” Because it would undermine their propaganda narrative.
It’s not the crazy, bloodthirsty ravings of a madman they would like to portray. The American people would still condemn the attack, but these grievances do beg some obvious questions.
- Is Bin Laden lying, or are these things really happening?
- If they are, then why are they allowed to continue?
- What options do these people have for obtaining justice?
- Is it really shocking the victims are angry?
- How will they stop these attacks on their lands?
- If they have no avenue available, is it surprising some of them turn to violence?
- What would my people do if we were in their shoes?
One of the things that Bin Laden emphasized was Palestine. I was a championing the Palestinian cause in my teens, long before I became a Muslim.
The reality of Palestine is shocking. And no matter how ruthless Israel is, bombing defenseless people and turning their villages to rubble, American leaders applaud.
It’s one cause that cuts across all segments of the Muslim population worldwide. Whether liberal or conservative, almost all Muslims care about Palestine.
To the point where some people have asked why on earth they single out this cause. For lots of reasons, actually, and I don’t plan to cover them all.
One reason is simply that passionate people have put Palestine on the map, including many Jews. But to me, one of the big reasons is that Palestine is so representative of the West’s hypocrisy and total disregard for the rights of people outside the Western orbit.
The Zionist project is a dagger in the hearts of the Muslims. And if that doesn’t make sense to you, then please consider a hypothetical parallel.
“Return” to Andalusia
I think one great way to drive home a point is to put the shoe on the other foot. Let’s draw a hypothetical parallel to the Zionist project in Palestine.
What if the Muslims lobbied to “return” to Andalusia, which is now a part of modern Spain. Let’s say the Muslims pointed out their decades of suffering in Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere.
Now they long to “return” to Andalusia, where the Islamic Golden Age took place. Where the Muslims ruled for almost 800 years!
And the UN “gave” Andalusia to the Muslims so they took over. The Spanish fought them, but the Muslims won an even bigger share of the land than the UN awarded them.
Now the surviving Spanish are in refugee camps. And the Muslims are still colonizing what’s left of their lands, in the name of creating an “Islamic state,” as free of non-Muslims as they can manage.
A Muslim anywhere in the world is eligible for immediate citizenship to Andalusia. But the Spaniards they displaced must remain “stateless persons” with no rights to their own land and homes.
The ISIS Test
Would the West say, “Wow that is such a just and moral cause!“? As so many did when Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians.
Would the West then criticize the evil Spanish “terrorists” for resisting the Islamic state? And remind us constantly how the poor, beleaguered Islamic state “has a right to defend itself“?
We don’t have to leave this entirely to speculation. Because we saw the reaction when a so-called Islamic State (aka ISIS) allegedly threatened to retake Spain.
No one in the West would accept that. But of course, that’s EXACTLY what they imposed on Palestine.
More people in the West are waking up to the truth about Palestine. But many still don’t get it.
Why is a racist “Jewish State” worth the blowback? Americans should be asking themselves that question.
It’s the Zionists who are foreign invaders terrorizing the Palestinians. Not the other way around.
Inversion of Reality
This sort of inversion is not unique to the conflict between the Palestinians and their Zionist tormentors. The same is true of the US throughout the Muslim-majority world.
The US is doing the attacking and the Muslims are defending themselves.
But the US is demonizing their victims as aggressors and falsely portraying themselves as the victims.
What’s our first clue? Easy: Who is on whose soil?
It was the US that traveled 6,000 miles to attack Iraq. Not the other way around.
It’s Western boots that are on Muslim soil, and Western drones in Muslim skies. Not the other way around.
Governments are and always have been the biggest terrorists on the planet. You can demonstrate this in the sheer numbers of dead and wounded.
Non-state actors can’t achieve anything on that scale. Nor can they simply choose to end the conflict.
The US has the option of leaving Muslim-majority lands. Of retreating to its own soil and fortifying its own borders. Instead of being on the offensive, attacking one Muslim-majority country after another!
What choice do Iraqis have? They can’t retreat from the US because they are not attacking us.
The same with the Palestinians. Israel could retreat to the Geneva Accord borders and there is nothing the Palestinians could do to stop them. But Israel chooses not to, and the West blames the Palestinians anyway!
I’m focusing on Iraq and Palestine because they’re such glaring examples. But they’re not the only ones.
There are too many to list! And the list is not only of Muslim-majority countries either.
The US has done this sort of thing in Latin America, Africa and other parts of Asia too. Always portraying itself as the “good guy” and the victims as “terrorists” or “pirates” or “narco-traffickers” and so on.
The Jedi and Others
Notice that I have not delved at all into Islamic doctrine. Because we don’t need doctrine to know what’s happening is unjust and makes other people angry. This is from our innate human nature (our fitrah).
This would be unjust if the victims were a community of Wiccans or a community of Amish instead of Muslims. Or to use a fictional example, those who practice the religion of the Jedi.
The Jedi would have a right to defend themselves too.
And if the Jedi (or whoever) didn’t wage their defense under a religious doctrine (whatever that might be), some of them would simply raise another banner. Because that is what human beings do.
An Unholy War for Land
In fact, for decades the Palestinian struggle was almost entirely secular. The man who pioneered the idea of hijacking planes for the Palestinian cause was a Christian named George Habash.
Israel itself helped bolster Hamas as a counterweight to the increasingly secular and moderate PLO.
The first suicide bombing in Palestine didn’t happen until the 90s – a century after the first Zionists arrived to colonize Palestine. Something all Palestinians resisted, whether they were Christian or Muslim.
Not because of any particular doctrine, religious or secular. Because they’re human, and that’s what human beings do when people try to violently displace them and steal their land.
Terrorists in the Mirror
We hear a lot about terrorists and terrorism. And a lot about radicals and extremists too. Usually in reference to Muslims.
But the use of these words is totally subjective with no real basis in rational thought or observable evidence.
You know what I think is radical? Handing Palestine to the European Jews.
You know what I think is extreme? Starving to death over a half a million innocent Iraqi children.
You know what I think is pathetic and cruel? The most powerful military in the world bombing poor goat herders in one of the poorest countries in the world (Afghanistan).
Who is the biggest terrorist on the planet? Someone with more illustrious credentials has already answered that question.
Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break the Silence
“And I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.” ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Those words were uttered by Martin Luther King, Jr. in a famous antiwar speech he delivered more than half a century ago. Since that time, most of what King stood for has been scrubbed of its “radical” antiwar message.
How much has really changed?
If you go back and examine what MLK really said, you’ll see a lot of the same messages I’m conveying here. Yet, King was a Christian, not a Muslim.
He didn’t need to consult Islamic doctrine (the current scapegoat of so many propagandists) to discern the same truth about American double standards, hypocrisy and constant resort to violence.
The Cornucopia of Terror
Think about how many “terrorist groups” there are under the umbrella of Islam and why that is.
How many can you name? Al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ansar al-Dine, Al Shabaab, and so on, right?
I don’t think it’s “Islamophobic” to wonder why there are all these groups we keep hearing about. In fact, we should talk about this.
For one thing, the US helped create or set up the conditions for a pan-Islamic, transnational Islamic army in order to deliver to the USSR its own Vietnam. Before that, a lot of groups had a local focus but now we have an international franchise.
The franchise got a boost by the way when the US invaded Iraq. Again! In 2003.
The US disbanded the Iraqi army and imprisoned jihadists, who took advantage of their incarceration to plan an insurgency. So now you have a plan and a bunch of trained military guys roaming around jobless.
What could go wrong?
How “Freedom-Fighters” Became “Terrorists”
The US starting destroying Iraq in 1990. Prior to that, the Afghan “freedom fighters” were our buddies.
So much so that US President Ronald Reagan dedicated the Space Shuttle Columbia to the “anti-Soviet insurgents in Afghanistan.” ‘We cannot and will not turn our backs on this struggle,” said Reagan.
See how that works? When you fight the Soviet invaders, you’re beloved “freedom fighters.” But when you fight the American invaders, you’re “terrorists.”
Terrorism is a highly elastic label and always has been.
Justice is Blind
One of the problems I have with the Western narrative is that it’s based on the who rather than the what. Instead of applying a consistent standard, the US (and the West more generally) judges by who is doing what.
By definition, “our” violence is always justified and “their” violence is always terrorism. Well, I don’t buy that.
Excuse me if I don’t join you in your fanatical denunciation of Al Qaeda. Or of Hamas. Or of whatever group has got you feeling salty at this moment in time.
There are a lot of actors on the stage, and the ones who are drawing the most blood are governments. Not non-state actors, however “good” or “bad” they may be.
What Would You Say?
Let’s draw another parallel. Say there are several women who are being raped repeatedly, and they are responding in various ways to their rapists.
Maybe it’s broadcast over the Internet, so we don’t know where it’s taking place. We can’t stop it.
As helpless spectators, let’s say you hear people criticizing the women who are being raped.
Maybe some try to slit their rapist’s throats. Maybe one of the victims manages to kill her rapist.
Other victims aren’t really doing anything. They just resign themselves to their fate.
But some of the spectators say the women who fought back are too violent. Slitting throats and killing people is never justified.
Some spectators say the women who don’t fight back are asking for it. And others point out they were probably promiscuous anyway.
What would you say?
What I would Say…
Why are you lunatics focusing on how the rape victims are responding, rather than the fact these women are being raped???
The Western imperial powers are the aggressors, not the victims. The victims are the entire populations of the countries they invade and terrorize. Those victims who actively resist and those who don’t.
Some of the victims may themselves commit war crimes, for which they’re accountable. But the lion’s share of the blame belongs to the aggressor.
I don’t need any “radical jihadist” or doctrine of any sort to tell me that. It’s common sense.
Several years ago a book came out entitled, “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror”. I bought one of the early copies, which was written anonymously.
Eventually, the author came out as twenty-plus-year CIA veteran – Michael Scheuer. It’s the CIA that coined the term “blowback” to describe those who strike back in response to US foreign policy.
What the book makes clear is that Muslims are engaged in a global insurgency. The West is trying to dominate and plunder their lands, and they are fighting back.
It’s not that complicated. If you still find it unclear, read the book and draw your own conclusions.
The “Islam done it” narrative is worse than a “bland euphemism.” It’s a dangerous blame-shifting lie.
People have the right to know the truth.
Let the people know straight from the horse’s mouth why they’re attacking Western targets. Let people know that unjust policy fuels retaliation.
How are the common people served by these lies? They aren’t, and yet they’re conditioned to think someone like me is “radical” whereas those who lie to them and preside over mass murder are peace-loving saviors.
No one needs anyone else or any doctrine to tell them that’s a complete inversion of reality. Reality itself is the best witness to the truth of what I’m saying.
And once you realize that, the whole charade is over.
Keep Asking Questions (Like My Mom Did)
Any truth should be able to stand up to scrutiny. I’ve been discussing these matters with people for a very long time.
Just like my parents before me. My mom didn’t lecture people. She shook people awake with her questions.
Once, my Mom asked a school teacher who was immersed in Zionist propaganda – to hand over her keys so she could give her house to a needy Jewish family. Then she would be willing to listen to her criticisms of the Palestinians, but not until then.
Because that teacher knew full well she would never do what she was demanding of others. She would never give up her own house for a poor Jewish family to move in.
Yet, the Palestinians were expected to do exactly this. So the question prompted her to put herself in someone else’s shoes, and thus question the Zionist propaganda that had poisoned her mind.
Sometimes challenging someone’s beliefs goes very badly. You cause them to experience cognitive dissonance and maybe some embarrassment.
So they get mad and lash out at you. Accuse you falsely and seethe in rage. But so many times after that encounter, and after some time has passed, a person will come back to me and say: “You changed my mind.”
Sometimes the change is quite profound, though it may have started with nothing more than a question or two. The rest they did themselves.
So look around at the world as it is today and ask yourself if you really buy the “Islam done it” narrative you’ve been fed.
This was a really long post. And there’s a part of me that says everything I wrote is so obvious, I shouldn’t even bother.
Except, it’s apparently not! The bottom line is that peaceful avenues are blocked. So a few desperate people take matters into their own hands.
You might think that’s wrong, but ask yourself what options are available to them. If you were them, what would you do?
So far no one has come back and explained what peaceful avenue the Muslims have sidestepped in favor of violence.
People don’t ask these basic questions. They don’t put themselves in other people’s shoes.
They don’t look past the propaganda. As a result, the false narrative that Islam is the cause of terrorism continues to spread.
All while these same people (mostly) are wagging their fingers at the wrong party.
That’s my take anyway. What do you think?