Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)
- Thread starter George Wallace
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,379
- Points
- 1,260
Jarnhamar said:
weird....
try this:
http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/24/canada-needs-a-coherent-policy-to-tackle-the-islamist-agenda
Canada needs a coherent policy to tackle the Islamist agenda
By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network
First posted: Saturday, June 24, 2017 06:00 PM EDT
For all of the talk we engage in about Islamist extremism, it’s hard to believe we don’t have anything resembling a coherent policy to tackle this menace.
Canada doesn’t have its act together on this most vital of global issues. But we’re not alone. The United States, for all of its conflicts with al-Qaeda and ISIS along with homegrown extremism, doesn't have a clearly articulated philosophy.
Case in point: The other week the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee held controversial hearings on “Ideology and Terror: Understanding the Tools, Tactics and Techniques of Violent Extremism”.
They were controversial both because of who testified and, shockingly, because some of the Democrats on the committee didn’t even think the hearings were necessary.
Two witnesses who testified had extensive personal knowledge of Islamic extremism: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Dutch parliamentarian and victim of female genital mutilation. Asra Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder, along with Canadian Raheel Raza, of the Muslim Reform Movement.
They should be welcomed as valuable voices in such a discussion. But instead they were sidelined, at least by liberal minds, for not following the naive progressive conception of radical Islam as a benign and misunderstood victim.
“This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity,” Hirsi Ali and Nomani write in a recent op-ed piece they co-authored for The New York Times. “And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.”
Yes, when you deliberately avoid tackling Islamism – the political agenda that seeks to enshrine orthodox Islam as the dominant force in society – you’re also turning your back on the social progress made by Western society in recent decades.
But at least the U.S. Senate had these hearings and allowed these brave women to speak about their experiences and knowledge. Even if you don’t care for their specific testimonies, the West’s discussion about radical Islam should incorporate more voices and more conversation, not less.
Canadians are eagerly waiting to see what the witness list for the M103 “Islamophobia” hearings, soon to get underway, will look like. Will it be made up mostly of pro-sharia apologists? Or will we hear from Muslim reformers who reject the orthodox elements of their religion?
These questions matter because they help set a tone for how the government, media and general public think about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.
Back in 1946, George Kennan, an American foreign service officer based in Moscow, submitted what’s now known as the Long Telegram to the State Department.
It was an 8,000 word document that detailed the post-war Soviet philosophy, how they planned to export that philosophy across the world and what the U.S. should do to combat it.
This was the first robust Soviet policy to be articulated on an official level and created the concept of “containment” that was used throughout the Cold War. Kennan then revised this telegram into an essay for Foreign Affairs magazine, which influenced the broader political culture’s perspective on the Soviet agenda.
Without such a unifying policy driving the West’s response to the USSR, the Cold War and the 20th century’s experiment with Communism could have turned out very differently.
“Our first step must be to apprehend, and recognize for what it is, the nature of the movement with which we are dealing,” Kennan writes in the memo. “We must study it with the same courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which a doctor studies an unruly and unreasonable individual.”
Kennan considered the issue “undoubtedly the greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably greatest it will ever have to face.” He clearly did not predict the rise of political Islam, which has hobbled many a Middle Eastern community and is now on the rise in countries as diverse as Turkey and Indonesia.
Give the memo or the Foreign Affairs essay a read. Kennan’s work is a refreshing exercise in sober threat assessment, something the Western policy apparatus is not doing – at least not publicly – when it comes to the threat of radical, political Islam.
Canada needs to incorporate this degree of thoroughness into its public policy – in the M103 hearings, in relevant ministerial mandate letters, in committee hearings and more.
Even those progressives who’d prefer to downplay the threat should be on board with such an approach. Ignoring the issue serves no one.
“I am convinced that there would be far less hysterical anti-Sovietism in our country today if the realities of this situation were better understood by our people,” Kennan observed. “There is nothing as dangerous or as terrifying as the unknown.”
Let's take this topic out of the unknown and give it the attention it deserves.
Canada needs a coherent policy to tackle the Islamist agenda
By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network
First posted: Saturday, June 24, 2017 06:00 PM EDT
For all of the talk we engage in about Islamist extremism, it’s hard to believe we don’t have anything resembling a coherent policy to tackle this menace.
Canada doesn’t have its act together on this most vital of global issues. But we’re not alone. The United States, for all of its conflicts with al-Qaeda and ISIS along with homegrown extremism, doesn't have a clearly articulated philosophy.
Case in point: The other week the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee held controversial hearings on “Ideology and Terror: Understanding the Tools, Tactics and Techniques of Violent Extremism”.
They were controversial both because of who testified and, shockingly, because some of the Democrats on the committee didn’t even think the hearings were necessary.
Two witnesses who testified had extensive personal knowledge of Islamic extremism: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Dutch parliamentarian and victim of female genital mutilation. Asra Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder, along with Canadian Raheel Raza, of the Muslim Reform Movement.
They should be welcomed as valuable voices in such a discussion. But instead they were sidelined, at least by liberal minds, for not following the naive progressive conception of radical Islam as a benign and misunderstood victim.
“This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity,” Hirsi Ali and Nomani write in a recent op-ed piece they co-authored for The New York Times. “And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.”
Yes, when you deliberately avoid tackling Islamism – the political agenda that seeks to enshrine orthodox Islam as the dominant force in society – you’re also turning your back on the social progress made by Western society in recent decades.
But at least the U.S. Senate had these hearings and allowed these brave women to speak about their experiences and knowledge. Even if you don’t care for their specific testimonies, the West’s discussion about radical Islam should incorporate more voices and more conversation, not less.
Canadians are eagerly waiting to see what the witness list for the M103 “Islamophobia” hearings, soon to get underway, will look like. Will it be made up mostly of pro-sharia apologists? Or will we hear from Muslim reformers who reject the orthodox elements of their religion?
These questions matter because they help set a tone for how the government, media and general public think about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.
Back in 1946, George Kennan, an American foreign service officer based in Moscow, submitted what’s now known as the Long Telegram to the State Department.
It was an 8,000 word document that detailed the post-war Soviet philosophy, how they planned to export that philosophy across the world and what the U.S. should do to combat it.
This was the first robust Soviet policy to be articulated on an official level and created the concept of “containment” that was used throughout the Cold War. Kennan then revised this telegram into an essay for Foreign Affairs magazine, which influenced the broader political culture’s perspective on the Soviet agenda.
Without such a unifying policy driving the West’s response to the USSR, the Cold War and the 20th century’s experiment with Communism could have turned out very differently.
“Our first step must be to apprehend, and recognize for what it is, the nature of the movement with which we are dealing,” Kennan writes in the memo. “We must study it with the same courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which a doctor studies an unruly and unreasonable individual.”
Kennan considered the issue “undoubtedly the greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably greatest it will ever have to face.” He clearly did not predict the rise of political Islam, which has hobbled many a Middle Eastern community and is now on the rise in countries as diverse as Turkey and Indonesia.
Give the memo or the Foreign Affairs essay a read. Kennan’s work is a refreshing exercise in sober threat assessment, something the Western policy apparatus is not doing – at least not publicly – when it comes to the threat of radical, political Islam.
Canada needs to incorporate this degree of thoroughness into its public policy – in the M103 hearings, in relevant ministerial mandate letters, in committee hearings and more.
Even those progressives who’d prefer to downplay the threat should be on board with such an approach. Ignoring the issue serves no one.
“I am convinced that there would be far less hysterical anti-Sovietism in our country today if the realities of this situation were better understood by our people,” Kennan observed. “There is nothing as dangerous or as terrifying as the unknown.”
Let's take this topic out of the unknown and give it the attention it deserves.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,359
- Points
- 1,160
PPCLI Guy said:
Interesting graphs thanks for posting that. It looks like there is a fairly steady increase in the number of terrorist attacks since 2011. Overwhelming portion by Islamic terrorists in 2004 & 2005 then picking up again 2012,2015,2016,2017.
I wonder if there is a graph for religious inspired attacks (ham on pizza, women's clothing) that aren't considered terrorism? I'll see if I can find anything.
- Reaction score
- 4,379
- Points
- 1,260
My conclusion was different.
There have always been terrorist attacks, and in fact more in the past than now. "Islam-inspired / jihadist" attacks are a relatively new phenomena - it is possible that they will be replaced as the front runners by the "other" that accounted for the vast majority of all attacks in the last 50 years.
Moreover, those "others" were treated as terrorists pure and simple, and were likely identified by their cause, rather than their race or religion. Bader Meinhof were terrorists, not Christian-terrorists, or German-terrorists - just terrorists. I sense that there may be a lesson in all of that.
There have always been terrorist attacks, and in fact more in the past than now. "Islam-inspired / jihadist" attacks are a relatively new phenomena - it is possible that they will be replaced as the front runners by the "other" that accounted for the vast majority of all attacks in the last 50 years.
Moreover, those "others" were treated as terrorists pure and simple, and were likely identified by their cause, rather than their race or religion. Bader Meinhof were terrorists, not Christian-terrorists, or German-terrorists - just terrorists. I sense that there may be a lesson in all of that.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Yes, they didn't get all pussy PC at the thought of calling them terrorists. Too many folks running scared of saying the wrong thing nowadays.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,359
- Points
- 1,160
It looks like Islam inspired attacks replaced what was happening in the 70's, 80s and 90's in Europe. (I had no idea there was so much terrorism back then)
Were the people responsible for those 3 decades of attacks also attacking other countries though? Guessing the IRA wasn't but not sure who else were responsible.
Islamic inspired attacks seem to be on the rise in Europe but they're also happening all across the world. Aside from 2011 people killed from "others" attacks seems to have dropped off at 2001.
There looks to be around 150 dead in Europe in 2016 but if TROP's website is accurate then world wide we're seeing 1500 in the last 30 days from Islam. It still seems to be like Islamic terrorism as an entity is world-scale. Something I don't believe others were.
[quote author=Loachman]
They were controversial both because of who testified and, shockingly, because some of the Democrats on the committee didn’t even think the hearings were necessary.
Two witnesses who testified had extensive personal knowledge of Islamic extremism: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Dutch parliamentarian and victim of female genital mutilation. Asra Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder, along with Canadian Raheel Raza, of the Muslim Reform Movement.
They should be welcomed as valuable voices in such a discussion. But instead they were sidelined, at least by liberal minds, for not following the naive progressive conception of radical Islam as a benign and misunderstood victim.
[/quote]
This seems to be a common practice. I seen a twitter post with a 20 something in the US bitching out a holocaust survivor for disagreeing that Trump is just as bad as Hitler or some shit like that.
"I figured you of all people would be able to see this. That's just your white privilege speaking, white privilege is a powerful drug" or some shit like that. Also seen it a lot of that mentality targeting gay and black conservatives in the US.
It seems in Canada we only want to hear from Muslims and ex-Muslims when they're pro-Islam. I was reading some articles about a young girl who escaped islam and blogged about it. Really crazy stuff, I'll try and find them again but like your example she not only gets shouted down and commended by Muslims but by Liberals as well.
Were the people responsible for those 3 decades of attacks also attacking other countries though? Guessing the IRA wasn't but not sure who else were responsible.
Islamic inspired attacks seem to be on the rise in Europe but they're also happening all across the world. Aside from 2011 people killed from "others" attacks seems to have dropped off at 2001.
There looks to be around 150 dead in Europe in 2016 but if TROP's website is accurate then world wide we're seeing 1500 in the last 30 days from Islam. It still seems to be like Islamic terrorism as an entity is world-scale. Something I don't believe others were.
[quote author=Loachman]
They were controversial both because of who testified and, shockingly, because some of the Democrats on the committee didn’t even think the hearings were necessary.
Two witnesses who testified had extensive personal knowledge of Islamic extremism: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Dutch parliamentarian and victim of female genital mutilation. Asra Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder, along with Canadian Raheel Raza, of the Muslim Reform Movement.
They should be welcomed as valuable voices in such a discussion. But instead they were sidelined, at least by liberal minds, for not following the naive progressive conception of radical Islam as a benign and misunderstood victim.
[/quote]
This seems to be a common practice. I seen a twitter post with a 20 something in the US bitching out a holocaust survivor for disagreeing that Trump is just as bad as Hitler or some shit like that.
"I figured you of all people would be able to see this. That's just your white privilege speaking, white privilege is a powerful drug" or some shit like that. Also seen it a lot of that mentality targeting gay and black conservatives in the US.
It seems in Canada we only want to hear from Muslims and ex-Muslims when they're pro-Islam. I was reading some articles about a young girl who escaped islam and blogged about it. Really crazy stuff, I'll try and find them again but like your example she not only gets shouted down and commended by Muslims but by Liberals as well.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 208
- Points
- 710
Jarnhamar said:
Actually it dates back even further. There were Algerian terrorists in France in the late '50s and '60s. While we were at 1 (F) Wing, Marville, my mother had just left a market in Longuyon, downhill from our PMQ, where minutes later the Gendarmes had a shoot out with an Algerian, in 1961. Terrorism in Europe is not that recent historically.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,847
- Points
- 1,040
>Moreover, those "others" were treated as terrorists pure and simple, and were likely identified by their cause, rather than their race or religion.
With Islamic militants, the religion is the cause, and so they, too, are identified by their cause.
With Islamic militants, the religion is the cause, and so they, too, are identified by their cause.
Hey Guys, long time no debate?
I have been on my back for the last month due to being sick and I have had some things bouncing around in my head. So this post may be completely un related to what has been going on here. But, First things first, Lex Justia, I have found the general membership here and some posters you are debating with to have very nuanced and educated positions. No where in the world will we find people who completely agree with us, but it is being able to debate and argue issues and not become angry with the person is what the world needs. Jarnhamar and I among others, have extremely different views on Islam, but that does not make him/them bad per se. You will find on army.ca people will articulate their criticisms of Islam for the most part respectfully and the mods will axe the trolls.
Second thing, the religion of peace link. I can not speak to the veracity of their research as of right now, but I can bring up another point. Which has been debated here before (i think), that maybe some of these 'terrorist' scum are just suicidal mentally disturbed people. Who after becoming disenfranchised or angry etc, go on a shooting spree saying 'Allahu Akbar'. Then it becomes easy enough for daesh to just claim credit and ba da bing ba da boom we have another attack.
Thirdly is the worlds population. 1 billion in 1800~, 2 billion in 1900~ and 7 billion in 2017~. Now rural areas tend to have higher rates of crime and yet to my understanding lower rates of terrorism and terrorist propagation. Could it be that the rising population and the increase in city dwelling has led to lower crime rate but has compounded the risk of terrorist attacks? Even though it seems to be a negative correlation? (I need more evidence to back up or debunk this, it is just an idea I had)
Fourthly, warfare. It has evolved in accessibility, in practice and execution. How we conducted warfare a hundred or two hundred years ago is different then today. The battle lines have become far more blurry and it is harder to pick the enemy out and one single isolated soldier can do far far more damage today then one or two hundred years ago. Also, with the rise in popularity of the internet, relatively simple homemade explosives and how to make them and were to place them has become fairly common knowledge to anyone wishing to act upon a deranged desire to murder people. So add this to the third point we have more attacks and they are potentially far more dangerous.
Fifthly, the counter narrative. Which, at the Islamic level is very disjointed and un-cohesive, we have many of thousands of Imams and activists within Islam debunking and working against the terrorists. But so many of the different Islamic groups are having issues working together and that makes their voice weaker as a whole and some idiotic fool claiming to be the caliph all the more seductive. At the government level, in some cases it is wholly misguided, other cases weak and to afraid to tackle key issues. Until the government creates a comprehensive and cohesive program to combat and Muslims as a whole work together not individually we will be having this issues to an extent. The individual lone actors speaking out do help, but a unified voice would be better.
Sixth thing, we are at WAR. These terrorist scum bags are enemy combatants, even when they live in their mommas basement. This is how daesh and the rest of those dogs decided to conduct their war. Just like the civil war were soldiers went behind the lines to terrorize the other side. These terrorists are the same way, to an extent. So should we not count them as enemy combatants and not isolated incidents? Meaning, we calculate how many times all the worlds armies have launched offensive attacks and then compare it to how many times daesh launched attacks against us and other innocents? That would be an interesting comparison.
Seventh, wahabis and hanbalis are not correlated. Hanbalis madhab did not create wahabism. But yes, some of the rulings are similar or identical. But the history is far more convoluted.
I had more but my mind has failed me and I have become tired by just writing this up.. and i must rest
Take care guys
Abdullah
I have been on my back for the last month due to being sick and I have had some things bouncing around in my head. So this post may be completely un related to what has been going on here. But, First things first, Lex Justia, I have found the general membership here and some posters you are debating with to have very nuanced and educated positions. No where in the world will we find people who completely agree with us, but it is being able to debate and argue issues and not become angry with the person is what the world needs. Jarnhamar and I among others, have extremely different views on Islam, but that does not make him/them bad per se. You will find on army.ca people will articulate their criticisms of Islam for the most part respectfully and the mods will axe the trolls.
Second thing, the religion of peace link. I can not speak to the veracity of their research as of right now, but I can bring up another point. Which has been debated here before (i think), that maybe some of these 'terrorist' scum are just suicidal mentally disturbed people. Who after becoming disenfranchised or angry etc, go on a shooting spree saying 'Allahu Akbar'. Then it becomes easy enough for daesh to just claim credit and ba da bing ba da boom we have another attack.
Thirdly is the worlds population. 1 billion in 1800~, 2 billion in 1900~ and 7 billion in 2017~. Now rural areas tend to have higher rates of crime and yet to my understanding lower rates of terrorism and terrorist propagation. Could it be that the rising population and the increase in city dwelling has led to lower crime rate but has compounded the risk of terrorist attacks? Even though it seems to be a negative correlation? (I need more evidence to back up or debunk this, it is just an idea I had)
Fourthly, warfare. It has evolved in accessibility, in practice and execution. How we conducted warfare a hundred or two hundred years ago is different then today. The battle lines have become far more blurry and it is harder to pick the enemy out and one single isolated soldier can do far far more damage today then one or two hundred years ago. Also, with the rise in popularity of the internet, relatively simple homemade explosives and how to make them and were to place them has become fairly common knowledge to anyone wishing to act upon a deranged desire to murder people. So add this to the third point we have more attacks and they are potentially far more dangerous.
Fifthly, the counter narrative. Which, at the Islamic level is very disjointed and un-cohesive, we have many of thousands of Imams and activists within Islam debunking and working against the terrorists. But so many of the different Islamic groups are having issues working together and that makes their voice weaker as a whole and some idiotic fool claiming to be the caliph all the more seductive. At the government level, in some cases it is wholly misguided, other cases weak and to afraid to tackle key issues. Until the government creates a comprehensive and cohesive program to combat and Muslims as a whole work together not individually we will be having this issues to an extent. The individual lone actors speaking out do help, but a unified voice would be better.
Sixth thing, we are at WAR. These terrorist scum bags are enemy combatants, even when they live in their mommas basement. This is how daesh and the rest of those dogs decided to conduct their war. Just like the civil war were soldiers went behind the lines to terrorize the other side. These terrorists are the same way, to an extent. So should we not count them as enemy combatants and not isolated incidents? Meaning, we calculate how many times all the worlds armies have launched offensive attacks and then compare it to how many times daesh launched attacks against us and other innocents? That would be an interesting comparison.
Seventh, wahabis and hanbalis are not correlated. Hanbalis madhab did not create wahabism. But yes, some of the rulings are similar or identical. But the history is far more convoluted.
I had more but my mind has failed me and I have become tired by just writing this up.. and i must rest
Take care guys
Abdullah
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448478/terrorism-overreaction-normalization?target=topic&tid=856
Normalizing Terror Is Worse than Overreacting to It
by David Harsanyi June 9, 2017 12:00 AM
The tendency to take terror in stride is harmful to our security.
The day after Islamic terrorists struck England for the second time in a month, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman offered the prevailing liberal talking point of the day: Stop panicking. “I’m going to London later this week,” he mocked on Twitter. “OMG! I might be stabbed! Or I might get hit by a drunk driver tonight, or run over by a cab tomorrow.”
He might. And if any of those things were to happen, although tragic and sad, it would have little effect on the population of England - for good reason. We are resigned to a certain level of random criminality and misfortune in Western society. In free societies, we do our best to mitigate the damage without trampling on civil rights, but it’s part of modern life.
Certainly, for the victims of violence - and their friends and family there’s little difference. The consequences for the rest of society, though, can vastly differ. If an unarmed man were shot down by a police officer, would Krugman tell his 3 million followers, “Relax, you have a better chance of being run over by a taxi”? Of course not. Terrorism is about more than just risk assessment. There are broader societal implications to take into account.
Those who kill in the name of Islam are part of a unique worldwide political movement that includes, to various degrees, radicalized men and women from both great factions of the faith. They are on every continent, and they give no quarter. There is no dialoguing. There is no realistic political solution that might appease them. There is no legislative fix. Terrorism - as well as the recruitment and propaganda tools by which terrorists survive - is funded by Islamic regimes and the radicals in them, and applauded by adherents around the world. Every attack is about all of this.
Remember, as well, that the magnitude of the violence is alleviated only by the vigilance of the people fighting it. Comprehending the depravity of the jihadi makes people nervous in the way random criminal violence should not. Those who peddle Krugmanesque risk assessments also fail to take into consideration the number of terror plots that have been thwarted. The West spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year trying to avert another 9/11, although we obviously struggle to stop these low-tech attacks. The London metropolitan police reported that “there are 500 current terrorism investigations, involving 3,000 current subjects of interest.” One of the London Bridge terrorists appeared in a documentary called “The Jihadis Next Door.” This seems alarming.
Krugman went on to tweet: “I mean, seriously. Terrorism = bad. But panicking about this stuff - or worse, inciting panic - is unforgivable. Especially for POTUS.” Wait. Terrorism is merely bad, but panicking is unforgivable? (Juxtapose this comment with the hysterical reaction to the United States’ exit from the toothless Paris climate agreement.)
I’m not sure the president was “inciting panic,” but let’s concede that his tweets were foolish. No one is panicking now. No one has panicked in the past. By panic, liberals typically mean you’ve failed to discuss Islamic radicalism within the politically correct strictures they’ve prescribed. “That’s exactly what the terrorists want!” goes the platitude. Don’t get too mad. Don’t be too blunt, or you might create new terrorists. And definitely don’t overreact.
Shouldn’t we, and the Brits, and everyone else, react to terror in the most appropriate way, rather than contemplating how jihadis want or don’t want us to react? After all, this wouldn’t be the first time we fought in a war others had decided to start.
Perhaps the only thing worse than overreacting is underreacting. It seems to me that one of the underlying reasons folks conflate terror and criminality is political. To admit that the Islamic world has a singular struggle with extremism, violence, and illiberalism is an unwelcome intrusion into debates regarding immigration and multiculturalism, especially in Europe.
Perhaps the only thing worse than overreacting is underreacting. In the United States, it’s a bit different: Let’s not overreact because we also have an extremist problem. We also hate. We’re also violent. Every time some deranged (genuine) lone wolf kills, the usual voices demand to know why we haven’t treated the attack as we would an Islamic strike. Well, after the murderous Portland, Ore., train attacker is subdued, there is no terror cell to dismantle, no funding to root out, and no worldwide death cult to liberalize. It doesn’t diminish the odiousness of the crime, but it necessitates a different response.
Needless to say, while it would be tragic if a Nobel laureate were accidentally run down by a lorry driver, girls who are blown up at an Ariana Grande concert - or, for that matter, people who are forced to choose between jumping off one of the Twin Towers or burning in it - are victims in a war that pits liberalism against despotism. No, it’s not World War II, but it’s dangerous enough. Treating its casualties as we would those who die in accidents will only normalize it.
David Harsanyi is a senior editor of the Federalist and the author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.
Normalizing Terror Is Worse than Overreacting to It
by David Harsanyi June 9, 2017 12:00 AM
The tendency to take terror in stride is harmful to our security.
The day after Islamic terrorists struck England for the second time in a month, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman offered the prevailing liberal talking point of the day: Stop panicking. “I’m going to London later this week,” he mocked on Twitter. “OMG! I might be stabbed! Or I might get hit by a drunk driver tonight, or run over by a cab tomorrow.”
He might. And if any of those things were to happen, although tragic and sad, it would have little effect on the population of England - for good reason. We are resigned to a certain level of random criminality and misfortune in Western society. In free societies, we do our best to mitigate the damage without trampling on civil rights, but it’s part of modern life.
Certainly, for the victims of violence - and their friends and family there’s little difference. The consequences for the rest of society, though, can vastly differ. If an unarmed man were shot down by a police officer, would Krugman tell his 3 million followers, “Relax, you have a better chance of being run over by a taxi”? Of course not. Terrorism is about more than just risk assessment. There are broader societal implications to take into account.
Those who kill in the name of Islam are part of a unique worldwide political movement that includes, to various degrees, radicalized men and women from both great factions of the faith. They are on every continent, and they give no quarter. There is no dialoguing. There is no realistic political solution that might appease them. There is no legislative fix. Terrorism - as well as the recruitment and propaganda tools by which terrorists survive - is funded by Islamic regimes and the radicals in them, and applauded by adherents around the world. Every attack is about all of this.
Remember, as well, that the magnitude of the violence is alleviated only by the vigilance of the people fighting it. Comprehending the depravity of the jihadi makes people nervous in the way random criminal violence should not. Those who peddle Krugmanesque risk assessments also fail to take into consideration the number of terror plots that have been thwarted. The West spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year trying to avert another 9/11, although we obviously struggle to stop these low-tech attacks. The London metropolitan police reported that “there are 500 current terrorism investigations, involving 3,000 current subjects of interest.” One of the London Bridge terrorists appeared in a documentary called “The Jihadis Next Door.” This seems alarming.
Krugman went on to tweet: “I mean, seriously. Terrorism = bad. But panicking about this stuff - or worse, inciting panic - is unforgivable. Especially for POTUS.” Wait. Terrorism is merely bad, but panicking is unforgivable? (Juxtapose this comment with the hysterical reaction to the United States’ exit from the toothless Paris climate agreement.)
I’m not sure the president was “inciting panic,” but let’s concede that his tweets were foolish. No one is panicking now. No one has panicked in the past. By panic, liberals typically mean you’ve failed to discuss Islamic radicalism within the politically correct strictures they’ve prescribed. “That’s exactly what the terrorists want!” goes the platitude. Don’t get too mad. Don’t be too blunt, or you might create new terrorists. And definitely don’t overreact.
Shouldn’t we, and the Brits, and everyone else, react to terror in the most appropriate way, rather than contemplating how jihadis want or don’t want us to react? After all, this wouldn’t be the first time we fought in a war others had decided to start.
Perhaps the only thing worse than overreacting is underreacting. It seems to me that one of the underlying reasons folks conflate terror and criminality is political. To admit that the Islamic world has a singular struggle with extremism, violence, and illiberalism is an unwelcome intrusion into debates regarding immigration and multiculturalism, especially in Europe.
Perhaps the only thing worse than overreacting is underreacting. In the United States, it’s a bit different: Let’s not overreact because we also have an extremist problem. We also hate. We’re also violent. Every time some deranged (genuine) lone wolf kills, the usual voices demand to know why we haven’t treated the attack as we would an Islamic strike. Well, after the murderous Portland, Ore., train attacker is subdued, there is no terror cell to dismantle, no funding to root out, and no worldwide death cult to liberalize. It doesn’t diminish the odiousness of the crime, but it necessitates a different response.
Needless to say, while it would be tragic if a Nobel laureate were accidentally run down by a lorry driver, girls who are blown up at an Ariana Grande concert - or, for that matter, people who are forced to choose between jumping off one of the Twin Towers or burning in it - are victims in a war that pits liberalism against despotism. No, it’s not World War II, but it’s dangerous enough. Treating its casualties as we would those who die in accidents will only normalize it.
David Harsanyi is a senior editor of the Federalist and the author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.
For those who do not understand that governments understate the problem and suppress those who recognize it, and that the media plays along:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448935/europe-free-speech-crackdown-hard-right-while-terrorists-go-ignored
Europe’s Free-Speech Crackdown: Punish Anti-Muslims, Ignore
by Noah Daponte-Smith June 23, 2017 5:09 PM
Governments that try to suppress incendiary speech on the right only make it more alluring.
A spate of terrorist attacks has hit Europe in the past month, not only in Manchester and London but also in Paris and Brussels, where incidents this week were mercifully terminated before they could do any real damage. In Britain, a man seeking vengeance rammed a van into a crowd exiting a mosque, giving rise to real and justified fears of an anti-Muslim backlash. The incidents have left the Continent, and especially Britain, in a state of nervous agitation, fearful of a prolonged period of social unrest and heightened tensions between Muslim communities and their secular neighbors.
On the issue of free speech, the response from authorities has been sad but predictable. Reports the New York Times: “In a coordinated campaign across 14 states, the German police on Tuesday raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media, including threats, coercion, and incitement to racism. Most of the raids concerned politically motivated right-wing incitement.” In Sussex, in southern England, a man has been charged with “publishing written material intending to stir up religious hatred against Muslims” on his Facebook account in 2015; he faces a year in prison. The Sussex police say they hope the lengthy sentence will deter those looking to “spread messages of fear and hate” on the Internet.
There are two things that come to mind in the wake of this suppression. The first is that Americans should never forget the value of free speech. Free speech - not its anodyne, Continental form - is by and large a uniquely American institution. It simply does not exist in Europe. Those who yearn for an America that looks more like the orderly, regulated, universal-health-care systems of Western Europe should keep this fact in the back of their mind always.
The second thing to say is that the crackdown on free speech is not occurring in absentia. The ongoing suppression interacts with decisions taken or not taken in other domains of policy and public debate. The most important of those decisions is that politicians and the culture more broadly have chosen not to inquire into the specifically Islamic roots of terrorism. To decline to blame Muslims en masse for terrorism is well and good and should continue. But the unwillingness to ask how Islam may provide a wellspring of justification for terrorist actions is harder to rationalize. It comes with a certain set of implications and corollaries.
Because someone still has to be blamed. Humans are incapable of accepting acts of terrorism - or just about any human action that causes mass suffering - as quasi-random acts governed by processes too byzantine for us to understand. We still feel the need to pin the blame on somebody or something, so that through punishment we may eradicate the chance of another attack.
In this case, the refusal to query the role of Islam in inspiring terrorism - a refusal regarding which my argument is agnostic - has directed the blame in the opposite direction, toward those people who make it their business to propagate their hatred of Islam and those who follow it. Not only does this blame-shifting fulfill the political need to shore up Britain’s international image - nobody likes a country of racists - and display the requisite concern for Muslim communities. It also fulfills the psychological need to force someone - anyone - to take responsibility for the heinous crimes.
In fact an entire ideology, that of right-wing xenophobia and racism, can be blamed, and its proponents punished. The energies that might have been directed toward Wahhabi extremism flow instead toward the elimination of an ideology expressing similar hatred but boasting considerably less power to incite actual violence. The logic motivating this suppression is precisely the one that authorities neglect to use in the case of Islam: that certain sorts of rhetoric, however anonymous and innocuous, have a radicalizing effect on the environment and can effect physical violence; therefore they must be prohibited.
That strategy is likely only to backfire. Responding to a terrorist attack by jailing entirely innocent men - they are nearly all men - who express unappealing and unwelcome views does little more than radicalize the opposition and reduce the size of the acceptable center ground. When a government tells its citizens that they may not hold certain views, those views do not fancifully dissipate; rather, they come to be articulated only by their most radical proponents, thereby polarizing the political climate and stifling the expression of more-moderate and constructive opinions. Had the present system of legal enforcement existed in the 1960s, Enoch Powell may well have faced prison time for his infamous “rivers of blood” speech. But that would not detract from the attraction of his ideas, or from their popularity: It would only ensure that they became the property of characters far more unsavory.
But that it will backfire does not mean it cannot do its damage. The terms in which the authorities conducting widespread suppression of free speech emanating largely from the right are jarring. “Our society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence, and violence either on the street or on the Internet,” says the president of the German Federal Criminal Police Office. That would not sound out of place in an Orwell novel, not only for its totalitarian mindset but also for its absurd juxtaposition with the situation on the ground: Idiots spewing their vile thoughts on Facebook are conflated with Islamic terrorists killing hundreds.
Europe has responded to the rise of terror with the tactics of suppression. That these tactics won’t work will become obvious soon enough. But until then, there is plenty of reason to fear.
Noah Daponte-Smith is a student of modern history and politics at Yale University and an editorial intern at National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448935/europe-free-speech-crackdown-hard-right-while-terrorists-go-ignored
Europe’s Free-Speech Crackdown: Punish Anti-Muslims, Ignore
by Noah Daponte-Smith June 23, 2017 5:09 PM
Governments that try to suppress incendiary speech on the right only make it more alluring.
A spate of terrorist attacks has hit Europe in the past month, not only in Manchester and London but also in Paris and Brussels, where incidents this week were mercifully terminated before they could do any real damage. In Britain, a man seeking vengeance rammed a van into a crowd exiting a mosque, giving rise to real and justified fears of an anti-Muslim backlash. The incidents have left the Continent, and especially Britain, in a state of nervous agitation, fearful of a prolonged period of social unrest and heightened tensions between Muslim communities and their secular neighbors.
On the issue of free speech, the response from authorities has been sad but predictable. Reports the New York Times: “In a coordinated campaign across 14 states, the German police on Tuesday raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media, including threats, coercion, and incitement to racism. Most of the raids concerned politically motivated right-wing incitement.” In Sussex, in southern England, a man has been charged with “publishing written material intending to stir up religious hatred against Muslims” on his Facebook account in 2015; he faces a year in prison. The Sussex police say they hope the lengthy sentence will deter those looking to “spread messages of fear and hate” on the Internet.
There are two things that come to mind in the wake of this suppression. The first is that Americans should never forget the value of free speech. Free speech - not its anodyne, Continental form - is by and large a uniquely American institution. It simply does not exist in Europe. Those who yearn for an America that looks more like the orderly, regulated, universal-health-care systems of Western Europe should keep this fact in the back of their mind always.
The second thing to say is that the crackdown on free speech is not occurring in absentia. The ongoing suppression interacts with decisions taken or not taken in other domains of policy and public debate. The most important of those decisions is that politicians and the culture more broadly have chosen not to inquire into the specifically Islamic roots of terrorism. To decline to blame Muslims en masse for terrorism is well and good and should continue. But the unwillingness to ask how Islam may provide a wellspring of justification for terrorist actions is harder to rationalize. It comes with a certain set of implications and corollaries.
Because someone still has to be blamed. Humans are incapable of accepting acts of terrorism - or just about any human action that causes mass suffering - as quasi-random acts governed by processes too byzantine for us to understand. We still feel the need to pin the blame on somebody or something, so that through punishment we may eradicate the chance of another attack.
In this case, the refusal to query the role of Islam in inspiring terrorism - a refusal regarding which my argument is agnostic - has directed the blame in the opposite direction, toward those people who make it their business to propagate their hatred of Islam and those who follow it. Not only does this blame-shifting fulfill the political need to shore up Britain’s international image - nobody likes a country of racists - and display the requisite concern for Muslim communities. It also fulfills the psychological need to force someone - anyone - to take responsibility for the heinous crimes.
In fact an entire ideology, that of right-wing xenophobia and racism, can be blamed, and its proponents punished. The energies that might have been directed toward Wahhabi extremism flow instead toward the elimination of an ideology expressing similar hatred but boasting considerably less power to incite actual violence. The logic motivating this suppression is precisely the one that authorities neglect to use in the case of Islam: that certain sorts of rhetoric, however anonymous and innocuous, have a radicalizing effect on the environment and can effect physical violence; therefore they must be prohibited.
That strategy is likely only to backfire. Responding to a terrorist attack by jailing entirely innocent men - they are nearly all men - who express unappealing and unwelcome views does little more than radicalize the opposition and reduce the size of the acceptable center ground. When a government tells its citizens that they may not hold certain views, those views do not fancifully dissipate; rather, they come to be articulated only by their most radical proponents, thereby polarizing the political climate and stifling the expression of more-moderate and constructive opinions. Had the present system of legal enforcement existed in the 1960s, Enoch Powell may well have faced prison time for his infamous “rivers of blood” speech. But that would not detract from the attraction of his ideas, or from their popularity: It would only ensure that they became the property of characters far more unsavory.
But that it will backfire does not mean it cannot do its damage. The terms in which the authorities conducting widespread suppression of free speech emanating largely from the right are jarring. “Our society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence, and violence either on the street or on the Internet,” says the president of the German Federal Criminal Police Office. That would not sound out of place in an Orwell novel, not only for its totalitarian mindset but also for its absurd juxtaposition with the situation on the ground: Idiots spewing their vile thoughts on Facebook are conflated with Islamic terrorists killing hundreds.
Europe has responded to the rise of terror with the tactics of suppression. That these tactics won’t work will become obvious soon enough. But until then, there is plenty of reason to fear.
Noah Daponte-Smith is a student of modern history and politics at Yale University and an editorial intern at National Review.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,393
- Points
- 1,160
Loachman said:
If people read on how ISIS established itself in places like Mosul, they moved in under the guise of charities or as students, developed intelligence on who was who and who could threaten their plans. Some players were co opted by marriage to family, others ID as initial targets, either threatened covertly to leave or murdered in a gruesome fashion in order to send a message. So when they were ready to move, the natural political "antibodies" to their movements were wiped out in a matter of weeks before they could coalesce into a effective response. The removal of the effective leaders in an area left the majority of people paralyzed and terrorized. Combined with decent light infantry tactics, good morale, good leadership, significant belief and understanding of their mission and high mobility, they were able easily defeat the resident police and military forces. Many of which it appeared they had also co opted through their Baathist contacts.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,241
- Points
- 1,140
Well, there must be a holiday long weekend coming up. Gas prices have risen....again...and ISIS has threatened to kill us..... again. (shared with the usual disclaimers)
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Next, they'll be giving her $10M too. :
Sounds as if she really needs Rehab.
Sounds as if she really needs Rehab.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
@AbdullahD
I can't agree with you that we're in wartime because ferreting out the radicalized from the general population doesn't fit conventional warfare; our efforts against Daesh, in a number of ways, do not fit either (but because they have established a demarcated caliphate, the frontlines of the "war" are clearer than they were pre-Daesh).
The differences between combatting terrorism and conventional warfare (I see you've listed some) are the very reasons why it would be difficult to equate them. I wrote an unpublished paper (not published because I've turned into a collection of essays, which is still a work-in-progress) in response to the dissent in the United States Gitmo detainees' case, Boudimene v. Bush, where the minority of that court's members justified Gitmo detentions by saying that, for all intents and purposes, detainees are prisoners-of-war. To arrive at this conclusion, one would have to essentially blur the differences between conventional warfare and the campaigns to combat terrorism.
The implication by blurring these differences is that, if there's the political will and authorization by statute, governments could crackdown on and indefinitely detain other classes of offenders on the basis that the government is fighting a campaign against them. As far as the US is concerned, there is statute that prevents the military from being used in place of law enforcement--in particular the Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrections Act--which essentially guards against this; but, again, with the political will, these can be amended or repealed altogether.
In short, if you blur the intricate differences between conventional warfare and the unconventional attacks today, you'd have opened a Pandora's box of unimagined consequences--perhaps some that will have strayed too far from basic protections that value liberty over overzealous enforcement or brutish tactics. What is and isn't warfare is no trifle matter.
I can't agree with you that we're in wartime because ferreting out the radicalized from the general population doesn't fit conventional warfare; our efforts against Daesh, in a number of ways, do not fit either (but because they have established a demarcated caliphate, the frontlines of the "war" are clearer than they were pre-Daesh).
The differences between combatting terrorism and conventional warfare (I see you've listed some) are the very reasons why it would be difficult to equate them. I wrote an unpublished paper (not published because I've turned into a collection of essays, which is still a work-in-progress) in response to the dissent in the United States Gitmo detainees' case, Boudimene v. Bush, where the minority of that court's members justified Gitmo detentions by saying that, for all intents and purposes, detainees are prisoners-of-war. To arrive at this conclusion, one would have to essentially blur the differences between conventional warfare and the campaigns to combat terrorism.
The implication by blurring these differences is that, if there's the political will and authorization by statute, governments could crackdown on and indefinitely detain other classes of offenders on the basis that the government is fighting a campaign against them. As far as the US is concerned, there is statute that prevents the military from being used in place of law enforcement--in particular the Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrections Act--which essentially guards against this; but, again, with the political will, these can be amended or repealed altogether.
In short, if you blur the intricate differences between conventional warfare and the unconventional attacks today, you'd have opened a Pandora's box of unimagined consequences--perhaps some that will have strayed too far from basic protections that value liberty over overzealous enforcement or brutish tactics. What is and isn't warfare is no trifle matter.
War has changed, as it has over several millennia, and it will continue to change.
The unconventional often becomes conventional. Mass armoured combat is now rather rare. Insurgencies are becoming the norm.
Khadr should, in my opinion, be treated as a prisoner of war and be held for the duration of the conflict.
Some jihadis may become safe to release into general society, but many will not stop until they are dead, therefore either death or indefinite confinement are the only ways of eliminating them as threats.
I have precious little sympathy for Khadr, and most here likely have even less than me.
He most certainly does not deserve compensation, and I hope that the Speer family gets every penny.
The unconventional often becomes conventional. Mass armoured combat is now rather rare. Insurgencies are becoming the norm.
Khadr should, in my opinion, be treated as a prisoner of war and be held for the duration of the conflict.
Some jihadis may become safe to release into general society, but many will not stop until they are dead, therefore either death or indefinite confinement are the only ways of eliminating them as threats.
I have precious little sympathy for Khadr, and most here likely have even less than me.
He most certainly does not deserve compensation, and I hope that the Speer family gets every penny.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449526/afghan-refugees-rape-jihad-europe?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Saturday%202017-07-15&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
Have Afghan Refugees in Europe Launched a ‘Rape Jihad’?
by David French July 14, 2017 5:19 PM
A compelling piece from a member of the foreign-policy elite suggests the answer is ‘yes.’
One of the hallmarks of jihadists is their grotesque savagery against women. The classic Hollywood picture of a jihadist as a pure, pious young Muslim man is largely nonsense. The reality is far more brutish. The tales of sex slavery in ISIS-held Iraq and Syria should chill thinking people to the bone. During my own time in Iraq, al-Qaeda terrorists were known for systematically raping women as part of an effort to shame them into becoming suicide bombers. After brutal gang rapes, they were told that the only way they could “redeem” their allegedly lost honor was to strap a bomb on their broken bodies and blow themselves up at restaurants, checkpoints, and hospitals. It was pure evil.
Also striking was the nonchalance and fearlessness of the most hardened jihadists after their capture by Americans. By the end of my deployment, I could almost predict whether we’d snagged a committed jihadist by his attitude in detention. Al-Qaeda leaders would often laugh, act like they were on vacation, and sometimes attempt to engage their captors in casual conversation. I’ll never forget the arrogant confidence of an Oxford English-speaking leader of an al-Qaeda rape ring. They knew they were safe, and they gloried in their invulnerability.
It’s against this backdrop - savage treatment of women and contempt for Western justice - that I read with alarm a stunning report on “Europe’s Afghan crime wave.” The piece is notable not just for its content, but for its author. Cheryl Benard has worked sympathetically with refugees and was a subject-matter expert at the RAND corporation. In other words, this piece isn’t from the anti-Muslim fever swamps but from the heart of the elite national-security establishment. Her thesis is simple: European nations are grappling with a wave of vicious immigrant attacks against women, and the attackers are coming disproportionately from Afghanistan.
The stories are horrifying, sometimes involving attacks in broad daylight and in public spaces like parks, trains, and train stations. Read these stories and try to imagine them happening here:
In one recent case that raised a huge public outcry, a woman was out for a walk in a park on an elevation above the Danube. With her she had her two children, a toddler plus her infant in a baby carriage. Out of the blue, an Afghan refugee leapt at her, threw her down, bit her, strangled her and attempted to rape her. In the struggle, the baby carriage went careening towards the embankment and the infant almost plunged into the river below. With her second child looking on aghast, the woman valiantly fought off her assailant, ripping the hood off his jacket, which later made it possible for an Austrian police dog to track him down.
Or take these stories, from an Austrian daily newspaper:
Front page: Afghan (eighteen) attacks young woman at Danube Festival. “Once again there has been an attempted rape by an Afghan. A twenty-one-year-old Slovak tourist was mobbed and groped by a group of men. She managed to get away, but was pursued by one of them, an Afghan asylum seeker who caught her and dragged her into the bushes. Nearby plainclothes policemen noticed the struggle and intervened to prevent the rape at the last moment.” Page ten: “A twenty-five-year-old Afghan attempted to rape a young woman who was sitting in the sun in the park. Four courageous passersby dragged the man off the victim and held him until the police arrived.” Page twelve: “Two Afghans have been sentenced for attempting to rape a woman on a train in Graz. The men, who live in an asylum seekers’ residence, first insulted the young woman with obscene verbal remarks before attacking her. When she screamed for help, passengers from other parts of the train rushed to her aid.”
Compounding the horror, she describes how authorities covered up or minimized the worst atrocities:
It became clear that the authorities had known about, and for political reasons had deliberately covered up, large-scale incidences of sexual assault by migrants. For example, a gang of fifty Afghans who terrorized women in the neighborhood of the Linz train station had been brushed off by a government official with the remark that this was an unfortunate consequence of bad weather, and that once summer came the young men would disperse into the public parks and no longer move in such a large, menacing pack. The public was not amused.
Benard concentrates on Austria, but these stories are being repeated across Europe. Moreover, these disproportionately Afghan attackers display breathtaking contempt for the law. Old men with gray hair will claim to be minors. They ruthlessly exploit welfare systems, due process, and Western norms to not just attack women but to suck all the resources they can from their increasingly angry and frustrated hosts.
Apologists try to offer absurd explanations for the crime wave, claiming alcohol abuse (an excuse sometimes offered by the refugees themselves), culture clashes, and the alleged inability of fundamentalist men to control themselves when exposed to the actual female form. All of them fail. Human beings are not that animalistic. A few beers don’t transform men into wild animals. Nor does the sight of a young mom’s bare arms. Benard, instead posits a different and far more disturbing explanation:
This brings us to a third, more compelling and quite disturbing theory - the one that my Afghan friend, the court translator, puts forward. On the basis of his hundreds of interactions with these young men in his professional capacity over the past several years, he believes to have discovered that they are motivated by a deep and abiding contempt for Western civilization. To them, Europeans are the enemy, and their women are legitimate spoils, as are all the other things one can take from them: housing, money, passports.
This explanation, in fact, rings true with jihadist theology and practice. Sex slaves represent “spoils,” as does the wealth of conquered regions. It’s a return to the plunder of the medieval past. The gentle Europeans give them nothing to fear, so jihadists live as they wish, taking what they want.
Benard ends her piece with a disturbing observation. Many of these Afghan men are products of American-funded education, grown up in an American-influenced nation. She calls these men “ours.” It’s a challenging point, but she’s wrong to say that we’ve been “the dominant influence and paymaster in Afghan society.” Paymaster, yes. Influence, no. Talk to virtually any veteran of the Afghan war, and he’ll tell you - we’ve barely touched the underlying culture, and the line between outright enemy and oppressed refugee is very blurry indeed.
America has friends in Afghanistan, to be sure, but it’s also full of enemies who hate America and the West. Never forget that it was and is fertile ground for Taliban extremism. It’s simply a mistake for anyone to think that the fact that someone “flees” a jihadist nation is at all relevant to their views about jihad or their regard for Western civilization.
So far, the United States has been fortunate. In large part because of the vast ocean that separates us from the Middle East, our refugee influx has never been more than a trickle compared with the surges that overwhelmed Europe after the rise of ISIS. Would the Obama administration have had the will to turn away a million men and women if they somehow washed up on our shores? But as the political battle over immigration and refugees continues to rage, Benard’s story is a vital reminder that jihad is the product of a culture that isn’t confined to the soil of a place. When enemies move, they bring their hatred to new lands.
What’s the solution? Benard calls for rigorous screening that reads a bit like the oft-maligned “extreme vetting” that Trump rightly promises. She also has a challenge for the Left:
Finally, the Left has to do a bit of hard thinking. It’s fine to be warm, fuzzy and sentimental about strangers arriving on your shores, but let’s also spare some warm, fuzzy and sentimental thoughts for our own values, freedoms and lifestyle. Girls and women should continue to feel safe in public spaces, be able to attend festivals, wear clothing appropriate to the weather and their own liking, travel on trains, go to the park, walk their dogs and live their lives. This is a wonderful Western achievement, and one that is worth defending.
In the aftermath of sexual assaults in Cologne, Stuttgart, and Hamburg at the end of 2015, my colleague Andrew McCarthy coined the term “rape jihad” to describe the systematic, large-scale, and public attacks on women at the hands of Muslim migrants. It’s a reminder that jihad - even violent jihad - is about more than car bombs, random stabbings, or nightclub shootings. It’s also manifested through a ground-up assault on Western values, taking advantage of Western sympathies, to create fear and confusion. Europe is teaching America a sad lesson. Our compassion must never make us fools.
- David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, an attorney, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Have Afghan Refugees in Europe Launched a ‘Rape Jihad’?
by David French July 14, 2017 5:19 PM
A compelling piece from a member of the foreign-policy elite suggests the answer is ‘yes.’
One of the hallmarks of jihadists is their grotesque savagery against women. The classic Hollywood picture of a jihadist as a pure, pious young Muslim man is largely nonsense. The reality is far more brutish. The tales of sex slavery in ISIS-held Iraq and Syria should chill thinking people to the bone. During my own time in Iraq, al-Qaeda terrorists were known for systematically raping women as part of an effort to shame them into becoming suicide bombers. After brutal gang rapes, they were told that the only way they could “redeem” their allegedly lost honor was to strap a bomb on their broken bodies and blow themselves up at restaurants, checkpoints, and hospitals. It was pure evil.
Also striking was the nonchalance and fearlessness of the most hardened jihadists after their capture by Americans. By the end of my deployment, I could almost predict whether we’d snagged a committed jihadist by his attitude in detention. Al-Qaeda leaders would often laugh, act like they were on vacation, and sometimes attempt to engage their captors in casual conversation. I’ll never forget the arrogant confidence of an Oxford English-speaking leader of an al-Qaeda rape ring. They knew they were safe, and they gloried in their invulnerability.
It’s against this backdrop - savage treatment of women and contempt for Western justice - that I read with alarm a stunning report on “Europe’s Afghan crime wave.” The piece is notable not just for its content, but for its author. Cheryl Benard has worked sympathetically with refugees and was a subject-matter expert at the RAND corporation. In other words, this piece isn’t from the anti-Muslim fever swamps but from the heart of the elite national-security establishment. Her thesis is simple: European nations are grappling with a wave of vicious immigrant attacks against women, and the attackers are coming disproportionately from Afghanistan.
The stories are horrifying, sometimes involving attacks in broad daylight and in public spaces like parks, trains, and train stations. Read these stories and try to imagine them happening here:
In one recent case that raised a huge public outcry, a woman was out for a walk in a park on an elevation above the Danube. With her she had her two children, a toddler plus her infant in a baby carriage. Out of the blue, an Afghan refugee leapt at her, threw her down, bit her, strangled her and attempted to rape her. In the struggle, the baby carriage went careening towards the embankment and the infant almost plunged into the river below. With her second child looking on aghast, the woman valiantly fought off her assailant, ripping the hood off his jacket, which later made it possible for an Austrian police dog to track him down.
Or take these stories, from an Austrian daily newspaper:
Front page: Afghan (eighteen) attacks young woman at Danube Festival. “Once again there has been an attempted rape by an Afghan. A twenty-one-year-old Slovak tourist was mobbed and groped by a group of men. She managed to get away, but was pursued by one of them, an Afghan asylum seeker who caught her and dragged her into the bushes. Nearby plainclothes policemen noticed the struggle and intervened to prevent the rape at the last moment.” Page ten: “A twenty-five-year-old Afghan attempted to rape a young woman who was sitting in the sun in the park. Four courageous passersby dragged the man off the victim and held him until the police arrived.” Page twelve: “Two Afghans have been sentenced for attempting to rape a woman on a train in Graz. The men, who live in an asylum seekers’ residence, first insulted the young woman with obscene verbal remarks before attacking her. When she screamed for help, passengers from other parts of the train rushed to her aid.”
Compounding the horror, she describes how authorities covered up or minimized the worst atrocities:
It became clear that the authorities had known about, and for political reasons had deliberately covered up, large-scale incidences of sexual assault by migrants. For example, a gang of fifty Afghans who terrorized women in the neighborhood of the Linz train station had been brushed off by a government official with the remark that this was an unfortunate consequence of bad weather, and that once summer came the young men would disperse into the public parks and no longer move in such a large, menacing pack. The public was not amused.
Benard concentrates on Austria, but these stories are being repeated across Europe. Moreover, these disproportionately Afghan attackers display breathtaking contempt for the law. Old men with gray hair will claim to be minors. They ruthlessly exploit welfare systems, due process, and Western norms to not just attack women but to suck all the resources they can from their increasingly angry and frustrated hosts.
Apologists try to offer absurd explanations for the crime wave, claiming alcohol abuse (an excuse sometimes offered by the refugees themselves), culture clashes, and the alleged inability of fundamentalist men to control themselves when exposed to the actual female form. All of them fail. Human beings are not that animalistic. A few beers don’t transform men into wild animals. Nor does the sight of a young mom’s bare arms. Benard, instead posits a different and far more disturbing explanation:
This brings us to a third, more compelling and quite disturbing theory - the one that my Afghan friend, the court translator, puts forward. On the basis of his hundreds of interactions with these young men in his professional capacity over the past several years, he believes to have discovered that they are motivated by a deep and abiding contempt for Western civilization. To them, Europeans are the enemy, and their women are legitimate spoils, as are all the other things one can take from them: housing, money, passports.
This explanation, in fact, rings true with jihadist theology and practice. Sex slaves represent “spoils,” as does the wealth of conquered regions. It’s a return to the plunder of the medieval past. The gentle Europeans give them nothing to fear, so jihadists live as they wish, taking what they want.
Benard ends her piece with a disturbing observation. Many of these Afghan men are products of American-funded education, grown up in an American-influenced nation. She calls these men “ours.” It’s a challenging point, but she’s wrong to say that we’ve been “the dominant influence and paymaster in Afghan society.” Paymaster, yes. Influence, no. Talk to virtually any veteran of the Afghan war, and he’ll tell you - we’ve barely touched the underlying culture, and the line between outright enemy and oppressed refugee is very blurry indeed.
America has friends in Afghanistan, to be sure, but it’s also full of enemies who hate America and the West. Never forget that it was and is fertile ground for Taliban extremism. It’s simply a mistake for anyone to think that the fact that someone “flees” a jihadist nation is at all relevant to their views about jihad or their regard for Western civilization.
So far, the United States has been fortunate. In large part because of the vast ocean that separates us from the Middle East, our refugee influx has never been more than a trickle compared with the surges that overwhelmed Europe after the rise of ISIS. Would the Obama administration have had the will to turn away a million men and women if they somehow washed up on our shores? But as the political battle over immigration and refugees continues to rage, Benard’s story is a vital reminder that jihad is the product of a culture that isn’t confined to the soil of a place. When enemies move, they bring their hatred to new lands.
What’s the solution? Benard calls for rigorous screening that reads a bit like the oft-maligned “extreme vetting” that Trump rightly promises. She also has a challenge for the Left:
Finally, the Left has to do a bit of hard thinking. It’s fine to be warm, fuzzy and sentimental about strangers arriving on your shores, but let’s also spare some warm, fuzzy and sentimental thoughts for our own values, freedoms and lifestyle. Girls and women should continue to feel safe in public spaces, be able to attend festivals, wear clothing appropriate to the weather and their own liking, travel on trains, go to the park, walk their dogs and live their lives. This is a wonderful Western achievement, and one that is worth defending.
In the aftermath of sexual assaults in Cologne, Stuttgart, and Hamburg at the end of 2015, my colleague Andrew McCarthy coined the term “rape jihad” to describe the systematic, large-scale, and public attacks on women at the hands of Muslim migrants. It’s a reminder that jihad - even violent jihad - is about more than car bombs, random stabbings, or nightclub shootings. It’s also manifested through a ground-up assault on Western values, taking advantage of Western sympathies, to create fear and confusion. Europe is teaching America a sad lesson. Our compassion must never make us fools.
- David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, an attorney, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
