Tuesday, March 22, 2016

beyond the Russians

Trying to understand today's Brussels terror attack, found an article -- it's very good -- if you go on Google and type in

the atlantic, the roots of muslim rage

it appears.  Written September 1990.  (If you read it and get to the bottom, you might feel, as I did, that the piece cuts off without a satisfactory summary, or conclusion -- there's a "page 2" -- you have to scroll down a little, and you can click on it...)

Meanwhile, here in the 21st Century, New York Times Reader Comments are in general swinging -- or perhaps inching -- along a continuum, sort of away from "welcome the refugees" and more toward "maybe stop Muslim immigration for a while"...

Paul W    Denver
The Left will never admit what is obvious.  The death toll could be 1000 and they'd still be afraid of being called racists (though Islam is not a race).

cgk    NY NY

Refugees are fleeing the people who do this kind of thing

Rich    California
These bombings demonstrate that Europe needs to close its borders to illegal immigration and to send all illegal immigrants back to their respective home countries.  It's time to clean house!

Winthrop Staples    Newbury Park, CA
We need to do the logical thing and stop all travel to and from, and trade with all countries known to finance and harbor Islamic terrorists like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran etc. instead of the insanity of chasing girl raping fanatics over hill and dale 5000 miles away at the cost of trillions and thousands of American lives. 

Isolate them, let them kill each other and starve. 

Deny them any benefits of the modern world until they decide to act like civilized societies. 

I'll bet as soon as the price of fanatical Islam support becomes an inability to sell any of their oil, and the denial of the sheiks' access to

shopping on Madison avenue and Paris,

gambling in Las Vegas,

expensive cars and

teen hooker parties in Italy

they'll decide to stop building brain washing Madrasas all over the world and pumping 100's of millions into the bank accounts of terrorists simply so they can brag about how "devoted" they are.

Michael    Baltimore
I was living in Paris for a few months in 1986 when there was a series of terrorist bombings that killed over 20 people and wounded many more.  It was news, but did not receive the kind of war-is-declared attention that we see now. 

There seemed to be a recognition that the world was a dangerous place and there would always be a handful of crazies who did stuff like this -- horrible stuff, but not apocalyptic. 

The polarization of the world in the years since 9-11 has only fed into the hands of these crazies, attracting more to their cause. 

If we continue to react as if we have been attacked by an invading army about to overthrow our civilization, and not by a few people who have access to explosives and guns, then we will only elevate their cause, helping them attract more believers who think that they really will change the world.

Stephen Avondale    Sweden
A lot of people blame all this on our interference in the middle east.  But the problem is not interference.

It's money.

[After world War II], with the advent of oil, huge sums started to flow into a part of the world that lacked a modern economy.  Much like in medieval Europe, the newly rich people bought off their bad conscience (read sinful pleasure trips and new palaces) by giving money to men of faith. 

The mechanism is simple - just like rich bankers in Italy maintained their higher moral ground by founding monasteries in the 1400s, the middle east oil barons bought their way out of wider criticism. 

One of the most popular kind of donations from these sheikhs were the establishment of religious schools.  Which occasionally attracted the local loons rather than the truly religious men.

A couple of decades later Mubarak of Egypt started to even *pay* the first generation of fanatics to leave Egypt for Afghanistan (and the west loved it - gave the Red Army a handful).  [recall - Charlie Wilson's War]  That is:  the rulers of middle east tried to effectively export away the problem of fanatics already some 30-40 years ago.

Sure the Iraq war 2003 was like pouring gas on the fire, but remember that Al Queada tried to blow up the twin towers already in the 90s, but failed.  They did blow up two US embassies and a US destroyer in the 90s.

So yes, we are to be blamed in the west -- but

not for interfering, but for letting it get completely out of hand because we couldn't see beyond the Russians.  [Gust Avrakotos:  "That ball keeps on bouncing. ..."]

Glenn Baldwin    Bella Vista, Ar
Not sure what the Western EU nations can do now that Muslims have become so much a part of their respective societies. 

But the United States can certainly minimize the threat here at home by disengaging with ongoing civil wars and conflicts in the Middle East, Nigeria and North Africa. 

There is a cataclysmic sectarian conflict brewing between Sunni and Shia, an Islamic version of the Thirty Years War.  And why we think we have some stake in this idiocy is totally beyond me.


No comments:

Post a Comment