The Real Global Virus: The plague of Islamism keeps on spreading

[igloo]

November 04, 2005, 8:40 a.m.

The Real Global Virus

The plague of Islamism keeps on spreading.

Either the jihadists really are crazy or they apparently think that they have a shot at destabilizing, or at least winning concessions from, the United States, Europe, India, and Russia all at once.

Apart from the continual attacks on civilians by terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the West Bank, there have now been recent horrific assaults in New Dehli (blowing up civilians in a busy shopping season on the eve of a Hindu festival), Russia (attacking police and security facilities), London (suicide murdering of civilians on the subway), and Indonesia (more bombing, and the beheading of Christian schoolgirls). The loci of recent atrocities could be widely expanded (e.g., Malaysia, North Africa, Turkey, Spain) — and, of course, do not forget the several terrorist plots that have been broken up in Europe and the United States.

The commonalities? There are at least three.

First, despite the various professed grievances (e.g., India should get out of Kashmir; Russia should get out of Chechnya; England should get out of Iraq; Christians should get out of Indonesia; or Westerners should get out of Bali), the perpetrators were all self-proclaimed Islamic radicals. Westerners who embrace moral equivalence still like to talk of abortion bombings and Timothy McVeigh, but those are isolated and distant memories. No, the old generalization since 9/11 remains valid: The majority of Muslims are not global terrorists, but almost all such terrorists, and the majority of their sympathizers, are Muslims.

Second, the jihadists characteristically feel that dialogue or negotiations are beneath them. So like true fascists, they don’t talk; they kill. Their opponents — whether Christians, Hindus, Jews, or Westerners in general — are, as infidels, de facto guilty for what they are rather than what they supposedly do. Talking to a Dr. Zawahiri is like talking to Hitler: You can’t — and it’s suicidal to try.

Third, there is an emboldened sense that the jihadists can get away with their crimes based on three perceptions:

(1) Squabbling and politically correct Westerners are decadent and outnumber the U.S. Marines, and ascendant Islamicism resonates among millions of Muslims who feel sorely how far they have fallen behind in the new globalized world community — and how terrorism and blackmail, especially if energized by nuclear weapons or biological assets, might leapfrog them into a new caliphate.

(2) Sympathetic Muslim-dominated governments like Malaysia or Indonesia will not really make a comprehensive effort to eradicate radical Islamicist breeding grounds of terror, but will perhaps instead serve as ministries of propaganda for shock troops in the field.

(3) Autocratic states such as Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran share outright similar political objectives and will offer either stealthy sanctuary or financial support to terrorists, confident that either denial, oil, or nuclear bombs give them security .

Meanwhile, Westerners far too rarely publicly denounce radical Islam for its sick, anti-Semitic, anti-female, anti-American, and anti-modernist rhetoric. Just imagine the liberal response if across the globe Christians had beheaded schoolgirls, taken over schoolhouses to kill students, and shot school teachers as we have witnessed radical Muslims doing these past few months.

Instead, Western parlor elites are still arguing over whether there were al Qaedists in Iraq before the removal of Saddam Hussein, whether the suspicion of WMDs was the real reason for war against the Baathists, whether Muslim minorities should be pressured to assimilate into European democratic culture, and whether constitutional governments risk becoming intolerant in their new efforts to infiltrate and disrupt radical Muslim groups in Europe and the United States. Some of this acrimony is understandable, but such in-fighting is still secondary to defeating enemies who have pledged to destroy Western liberal society. At some point this Western cannibalism becomes not so much counterproductive as serving the purposes of those who wish America to call off its struggle against radical Islam.

Most Americans think that our present conflict is not comparable with World War II, in either its nature or magnitude. Perhaps — but they should at least recall the eerie resemblance of our dilemma to the spread of global fascism in the late 1930s.

At first few saw any real connection between the ruthless annexation of Manchuria by Japanese militarists, or Mussolini’s brutal invasion of Ethiopia, or the systematic aggrandizement of Eastern-European territory by Hitler. China was a long way from Abyssinia, itself far from Poland. How could a white-supremacist Nazi have anything in common with a racially-chauvinist Japanese or an Italian fascist proclaiming himself the new imperial Roman?

In response, the League of Nations dithered and imploded (sound familiar?). Rightist American isolationists (they’re back) assured us that fascism abroad was none of our business or that there were conspiracies afoot by Jews to have us do their dirty work. Leftists were only galvanized when Hitler finally turned on Stalin (perhaps we have to wait for Osama to attack Venezuela or Cuba to get the Left involved). Abroad even members of the British royal family were openly sympathetic to German grievances (cf. Prince Charles’s silence about Iran’s promise to wipe out Israel, but his puerile Edward VIII-like lectures to Americans about a misunderstood Islam). French appeasement was such that even the most humiliating concession was deemed preferable to the horrors of World War I (no comment needed).

We can, of course, learn from this. It’s past time that we quit worrying whether a killer who blows himself up on the West Bank, or a terrorist who shouts the accustomed jihadist gibberish as he crashes a jumbo jet into the World Trade Center, or a driver who rams his explosives-laden car into an Iraqi polling station, or a Chechnyan rebel who blows the heads off schoolchildren, is in daily e-mail contact with Osama bin Laden. Our present lax attitude toward jihadism is akin to deeming local outbreaks of avian flu as regional maladies without much connection to a new strain of a deadly — and global — virus.

Instead, the world—if it is to save its present liberal system of free trade, safe travel, easy and unfettered communications, and growing commitment to constitutional government—must begin seeing radical Islamism as a universal pathology rather than reactions to regional grievances, if it is ever to destroy it materially and refute it ideologically.

Yet the antidote for radical Islam, aside from the promotion of democratization and open economies, is simple. It must be militarily defeated when it emerges to wage organized violence, as in the cases of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Zarqawi’s terrorists in Iraq, and the various killer cliques in Palestine.

Second, any who tolerate radical Islam should be ostracized. Muslims living in the West must be condemned when they assert that the Jews caused 9/11, or that suicide bombing is a legitimate response to Israel, or that Islamic immigrants’ own unique culture gives them a pass from accustomed assimilation, or that racial and religious affinity should allow tolerance for the hatred that spews forth from madrassas and mosques — before the patience of Western liberalism is exhausted and “the rules of the game†in Tony Blair’s words “change†quite radically and we begin to see mass invitations to leave.

Third, nations that intrigue with jihadists must be identified as the enemies of civilization. We often forget that there are now left only four major nation-states in the world that either by intent or indifference allow radical Islamists to find sanctuary.

If Pakistan were seriously to disavow terrorism and not see it as an asset in its rivalry with India and as a means to vent anti-Western angst, then Osama bin Laden, Dr. Zawahiri, and their lieutenants would be hunted down tomorrow.

If the petrolopolis of Saudi Arabia would cease its financial support of Wahhabi radicals, most terrorists could scarcely travel or organize operations.

If there were sane governments in Syria and Iran, then there would be little refuge left for al Qaeda, and the money and shelter that now protects the beleaguered and motley collection of ex-Saddamites, Hezbollah, and al Qaedists would cease.

So in large part four nations stand in the way of eradicating much of the global spread of jihadism — and it is no accident that either oil or nuclear weapons have won a global free pass for three of them. And it is no accident that we don’t have a means to wean ourselves off Middle East oil or as yet stop Iran from becoming the second Islamic nuclear nation.

But just as importantly, our leaders must explain far more cogently and in some detail — rather than merely assert — to the Western public the nature of the threat we face, and how our strategy will prevail.

In contrast, when the American public is still bickering over WMDs rather than relieved that the culprit for the first World Trade Center bombing can no longer find official welcome in Baghdad; or when our pundits seem more worried about Halliburton than the changes in nuclear attitudes in Libya and Pakistan; or when the media mostly ignores a greater percentage of voters turning out for a free national election in the heart of the ancient caliphate than during most election years in the United States — something has gone terribly, tragically wrong here at home.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

[igloo]

This piece is so fucking good it is unreal...every fucking American, and/or true "liberal" person in this world, should read, internalize, absorb, comprehend, and adhere to the thought process laid out in this rational, articulate, common sense dose of REALITY.......we need to wake the fuck up, and it is inconvievable that most still have not......

And I will say it again, whenis the Bush Administration going to hire this guy for their communications team, or for State .................

[destruction]

Intern. He needs fresh lips on his cock.

[igloo]

Intern. He needs fresh lips on his cock.

Please, please don't litter important topics with your posts....

[igloo]

bump for ou812

[barraquilla]

This piece is so fucking good it is unreal...every fucking American, and/or true "liberal" person in this world, should read, internalize, absorb, comprehend, and adhere to the thought process laid out in this rational, articulate, common sense dose of REALITY.......we need to wake the fuck up, and it is inconvievable that most still have not......

And I will say it again, whenis the Bush Administration going to hire this guy for their communications team, or for State .................

I'm curious, which of his points do you agree with the most? and in your estimation what ways would he benefit gwb? if you wanna expand upon it, if not, that's cool.

[igloo]

I'm curious, which of his points do you agree with the most? and in your estimation what ways would he benefit gwb? if you wanna expand upon it, if not, that's cool.

IMO--Bush, and his entire communication team have been awful. I am not talking the usual spin doctoring and political bullshit that every Presidency (Republican or Democrat) engage in.

In general, I am talking about clearly laying out what the "war on terrror" is (for example, Bush in recent months finally talking about "Islamic Militancy, Islamofacism, etc). And from Sep 12th I have been calling for it. I think they have done an awful job in managing the Iraq War communication. And I am not talking about diminishing or spinning bad events. I am talking about answering his critcis when baseless/undermining bullshit has been lobbed, better promoting of what has been accomplished (and a lot has been despite the bad), sustainable updates on the progress of Iraq, historical precendence applied to this war, etc, etc.

IMO--no one I have read does a better job than VDH in articluating the REALITY of the current situation, what we are truly up against, and providing historical facts/benchmarks, if you will, to put things in perspective.. I try and post all his pieces. IMO- his views should give pause to Dems and Republicans, and either side of the Iraq War divide. I guess if there is one word to desribe what he offers: perspective.

Like I said, it is bad enough that Bush is a poor articulator, but his communication team has failed him, and quite frankly, all of us, as well. And often what happens is when Bush does hit the mark with a speech, or any communication of an essential fact, event, policy, whatever, it quickly gets lost. What is interesting is Rove and Co are brilliant when it comes to election messages, but awful with managing the White House.

I often said that if Clinton articulated the same messages, policies, and speech (and actually did, i.e. freedom and democracy in the ME), the very same people killing Bush who have their vaginas dripping. And we have no choice but to wonder how this would impact the country, teh war, our soldiers, other nations, and most of all, our enemies.

[barraquilla]

thanks.

i don't know much about this this guy. but i agree the bush administration needs help to explain and back up their middle east policies, certainly a little history and fact would be beneficial. it has always been my contention that gwb lacks academically inclined advisors in general. ya know, there are no sununu or kissinger types in his core of advisors, other than ghwb. i thnk in gwb's case, cronyism is not working and he could do with advisors who offer a fresh and knowledgeable perspective... now i'm not totally discounting rice, et. al, but, imo, better choices could have been made.

[ou812]

bump for ou812

VDH is a pro-Israeli neoconservative right-winger and historically his writings and viewpoints lean heavily in that direction, that should be noted because I think it has a great deal of bearing on the undertones of this piece given his imperialistic viewpoints and general aversion to the Islamic world. Alot of his views come dangerously close to hate propaganda. One might suggest that he is an anti-Islamist as he is condemning those of being anti-Semitic in this writing.

It's funny Hansen has in the past written that disdain towards neo-conservative is the result of anti-Semitism as well........laughable.

I honestly don't enjoy writings of rabid leftist or right-wingers very much because their viewpoint are too politically skewed. I tend to get more from the moderates.

Needless to say, in regards to getting at the actual article iteself, it's not like he's really saying anything new. But the manner in which he is choosing to write this piece throws in too much generalization and blanket statements. He makes a few points that would make sense, but would hit home with me a bit better if his prejudicial overtones weren't as blatant. I think that some of his other viewpoints are flawed, I don't think radical Islamicists are a "universal pathology" as he is so grandiosely puts it, I think they are in fact the result of the regional grievances of that area.

However, the point of this article as far as I can see it (both explicitly and implicitly) is not to raise awareness to a problem, its to generate disdain and hate for a group of people/area of the world that he appears to have an agenda against as evident by his diatribes in this piece as well as by the topics of many of his other writings. His aim is to portray the entire Middle East in a hateful manner.

But that's just my take on it. If you want to think that it's the greatest thing written since the Constitution then be my guest.

[barraquilla]

yeah, i don't know anything about vdh, but shall look up his other work. although, i would say the tone of his article pretty much matches the direction the u.s has been headed for years, both socially and in policy.

there are so many factors that influence the distrust/fear in the west towards muslims and vice versa, that few are truly looking at the root of our issues. even though vdh has, to my mind, a disturbing p.o.v. towards muslims, the "demonization" of islam is by no means unique to conservatives. so i always consider what is more dangerous, those who say and stand by their statements, like he does? or those who think similarly and act on it, then if something goes wrong, hide their level of involvment?

...

[daprofessional]

first of all igloo, I just want to thank you for posting this article. It is an eye-opening read. This, along with the German Chancellor's recent remarks draw a disturbing parallel between early 21st century islamic fundamentalism and 20th century fascism. But I have a few issues with what he says in the last three paragraphs.

So in large part four nations stand in the way of eradicating much of the global spread of jihadism — and it is no accident that either oil or nuclear weapons have won a global free pass for three of them. And it is no accident that we don’t have a means to wean ourselves off Middle East oil or as yet stop Iran from becoming the second Islamic nuclear nation.

But just as importantly, our leaders must explain far more cogently and in some detail — rather than merely assert — to the Western public the nature of the threat we face, and how our strategy will prevail.

In contrast, when the American public is still bickering over WMDs rather than relieved that the culprit for the first World Trade Center bombing can no longer find official welcome in Baghdad; or when our pundits seem more worried about Halliburton than the changes in nuclear attitudes in Libya and Pakistan; or when the media mostly ignores a greater percentage of voters turning out for a free national election in the heart of the ancient caliphate than during most election years in the United States — something has gone terribly, tragically wrong here at home.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

1) what does he mean it's no accident that we haven't weaned ourselves off foreign oil? Is he really blaming that on the left? Because that's rediculous, it's the responsibility of the Republicans in power now to eliminate the dependency on foreign oil. I hope George Bush wasn't just spouting bland idealistic notions in that State of the Union. It seems to be the only way now.

and

2)I really like the more cogent and realistic political talk. But ever since the great communicator Reagan, all politicians do is spin words around and present things in a pc manner. Bush is in power now, and he has three years to address the public in a serious manner, not as children.

[igloo]

first of all igloo, I just want to thank you for posting this article. It is an eye-opening read. This, along with the German Chancellor's recent remarks draw a disturbing parallel between early 21st century islamic fundamentalism and 20th century fascism. But I have a few issues with what he says in the last three paragraphs.

1) what does he mean it's no accident that we haven't weaned ourselves off foreign oil? Is he really blaming that on the left? Because that's rediculous, it's the responsibility of the Republicans in power now to eliminate the dependency on foreign oil. I hope George Bush wasn't just spouting bland idealistic notions in that State of the Union. It seems to be the only way now.

and

2)I really like the more cogent and realistic political talk. But ever since the great communicator Reagan, all politicians do is spin words around and present things in a pc manner. Bush is in power now, and he has three years to address the public in a serious manner, not as children.

No problem. As I stated,I think VDH brings more perpsective than anyone these days.

I don't think he is blaming just the left--I think he is blaming all of us, in anbd every one. WHile I agree with you teh GOP holds the juice in Comgress, it going to take everyone to get us out of this mess.

And on your second point, I could not agree with you more. I have been saying the same thing for years now. AN evident by some of the morons who spew bullshit on this board, some are just imbeciles, but some simply don;t understand---and in part, I blame the Bush administration for not properly getting this country into a framework of thinking that matches reality.

[igloo]

VDH is a pro-Israeli neoconservative right-winger and historically his writings and viewpoints lean heavily in that direction, that should be noted because I think it has a great deal of bearing on the undertones of this piece given his imperialistic viewpoints and general aversion to the Islamic world. Alot of his views come dangerously close to hate propaganda. One might suggest that he is an anti-Islamist as he is condemning those of being anti-Semitic in this writing.

It's funny Hansen has in the past written that disdain towards neo-conservative is the result of anti-Semitism as well........laughable.

I honestly don't enjoy writings of rabid leftist or right-wingers very much because their viewpoint are too politically skewed. I tend to get more from the moderates.

Needless to say, in regards to getting at the actual article iteself, it's not like he's really saying anything new. But the manner in which he is choosing to write this piece throws in too much generalization and blanket statements. He makes a few points that would make sense, but would hit home with me a bit better if his prejudicial overtones weren't as blatant. I think that some of his other viewpoints are flawed, I don't think radical Islamicists are a "universal pathology" as he is so grandiosely puts it, I think they are in fact the result of the regional grievances of that area.

However, the point of this article as far as I can see it (both explicitly and implicitly) is not to raise awareness to a problem, its to generate disdain and hate for a group of people/area of the world that he appears to have an agenda against as evident by his diatribes in this piece as well as by the topics of many of his other writings. His aim is to portray the entire Middle East in a hateful manner.

But that's just my take on it. If you want to think that it's the greatest thing written since the Constitution then be my guest.

:laugh: ...you are a tool. Everyone is a ne-conservative except the almighty ou812, who rises above to be a "moderate"...shut the fuck up you dickhead, you are fooling no one blowhard......stick to regurgitating Michael Moorisms (so I can call you out on it again jerkoff), and reciting "The Nation" views on VDH.....

You really are a jerkoff

[ghhhhhost]

i love the title of the article..it really made me wana read it...

[ou812]

:laugh: ...you are a tool. Everyone is a ne-conservative except the almighty ou812, who rises above to be a "moderate"...shut the fuck up you dickhead, you are fooling no one blowhard......stick to regurgitating Michael Moorisms (so I can call you out on it again jerkoff), and reciting "The Nation" views on VDH.....

You really are a jerkoff

Well, I'm sorry you don't like my critique of this guy you hold in such revere. Your response is pretty much what I was expecting since, in your humble opinion, anyone that doesn't share your viewpoints you instead of intelligently trying to debate the point you resort to insulting because perhaps your feeble mind is only capable of copy and pasting an article and instead of intelligently trying to analyze what is being said you can only insult when someone doesn't agree with it. Don't worry, I've seen your type on several other board and I'm sure you don't fool too many on this one, you fit the stereotypical role quite well. I'd venture that you're either a teenager that has practically never ventured from his hometown or a middle-aged embittered man who's wife left him and thinks the world owes him some sort of favor. In either case, grow up.

In any event, it's actually not suprising that you would side so strongly with his pro-Zionist, Islamic hating viewpoints since you have very prejudiced viewpoints to anything that does not fit your mold. You really aren't a very worldly knowledgeable person.

Have a nice day.

[destruction]

Well, I'm sorry you don't like my critique of this guy you hold in such revere. Your response is pretty much what I was expecting since, in your humble opinion, anyone that doesn't share your viewpoints you instead of intelligently trying to debate the point you resort to insulting because perhaps your feeble mind is only capable of copy and pasting an article and instead of intelligently trying to analyze what is being said you can only insult when someone doesn't agree with it. Don't worry, I've seen your type on several other board and I'm sure you don't fool too many on this one, you fit the stereotypical role quite well. I'd venture that you're either a teenager that has practically never ventured from his hometown or a middle-aged embittered man who's wife left him and thinks the world owes him some sort of favor. In either case, grow up.

In any event, it's actually not suprising that you would side so strongly with his pro-Zionist, Islamic hating viewpoints since you have very prejudiced viewpoints to anything that does not fit your mold. You really aren't a very worldly knowledgeable person.

Have a nice day.

I strongly suspect that "igloo" is one or more of the following:

1) A young boy fooling around on the Internet.

2) A paid troll, given license to say anything at all.

3) A guy with real sexual-identity problems.

4) A mentally disturbed individual.

5) A former abused child, firing back at the world.

6) An inbred child whose parents are really his aunt and uncle.

7) Someone whose wife (his cousin) left him for another guy (his brother who is currently in Iraq).

8) A guy whose girlfriend (sister) told him he didn't have it.

9) An alcoholic.

10) A crackhead.

11) A career criminal.

12) Never made it past the 8th grade.

13) Doesn't read anything else except for literature from the NRA, the KKK, Hitler Youth and the Christian Coalition.

14) Lives in a trailer park.

15) Owns illegal assult weapons.

16) Drives an SUV with 40 inch wheels and a gun rack so he can look tough.

17) An naiive dunce who watches Fox News and the 700 club because his cable or satellite company only provides two channels.

18) Masturbates to Bush whenever his face is shown on Fox News because Porno Magazine centerfolds don't get it up for him.

19) Plays with Barbie and Bratz dolls and pretends they are dressing him in girls' clothes when he puts them on himself (along with makeup and prefume) bringing us back to #3 (sexual identity problems).

[igloo]

Well, I'm sorry you don't like my critique of this guy you hold in such revere. Your response is pretty much what I was expecting since, in your humble opinion, anyone that doesn't share your viewpoints you instead of intelligently trying to debate the point you resort to insulting because perhaps your feeble mind is what is being said you can only insult when someone doesn't agree with it. Don't worry, I've seen your type on several other board and I'm sure you don't fool too many on this one, you fit the stereotypical role quite well. I'd venture that you're either a teenager that has practically never ventured from his hometown or a middle-aged embittered man who's wife left him and thinks the world owes him some sort of favor. In either case, grow up.

In any event, it's actually not suprising that you would side so strongly with his pro-Zionist, Islamic hating viewpoints since you have very prejudiced viewpoints to anything that does not fit your mold. You really aren't a very worldly knowledgeable person.

Have a nice day.

:lol3: ............that was fucking great. I actually laughed out loud. You are such a blowhard, it is unreal. Blah, blah, blah with your "if people don't share your opinion...", ...."only capable of copy and pasting an article and instead of intelligently trying to analyze" and of course, my favorite, the labels you throw around when you claim to hate labels: "pro-Zionist" , "neo-con", and "Islamist hating". "prejudiced"...... .....fucking priceless.....

Michael Moore could not have shit out a better response.........blowhard, you are fooling no one with your "moderate" bullshit, and your delusionary self-pats on the back to your weak intellect.....you are just another Bush hating , label throwing, jerkoff who thinks they are smart because they throw around words like pro-zionist, and LABEL everyone who DISAGREES with your limited thinking as neo-cons or bigots....

SOn, you are the poster boy for the league of jerkoffs.....but thanks for the laugh blowhard, that was great.....fucking tool.......and son, don't worry, I have seen your type, and as always, history will show you are just another moron on the wrong side of it......now run to the Nation to go get some more labels, retard.....

[ou812]

You've still made no point

[igloo]

You've still made no point

I think the point is clear--you are a jerkoff. Now run along, go play with your BigFoot doll as you stick an Arianna Huffington strap-on up your ass while trying to tell yourself how smart you are ....don't hurt yourself little boy

[bigpoppanils]

I think the point is clear--you are a jerkoff. Now run along, go play with your BigFoot doll as you stick an Arianna Huffington strap-on up your ass while trying to tell yourself how smart you are ....don't hurt yourself little boy

the only point that you have made is that if you hear any opinion that is different from yours you blow up.

[bigpoppanils]

VDH is a pro-Israeli neoconservative right-winger

and neo-cons are no longer in favor in the Bush administration.

the architects of the Iraq war have either resigned or been marginalized.

Neorealists like Condi have taken over foreign policy.

[igloo]

the only point that you have made is that if you hear any opinion that is different from yours you blow up.

bigpoops..please crawl under a rock...haven't you received enough ass kickings over time you litte pussy cunt.......but congrats, you actually made it past one sentence

[ou812]

I think the point is clear--you are a jerkoff. Now run along, go play with your BigFoot doll as you stick an Arianna Huffington strap-on up your ass while trying to tell yourself how smart you are ....don't hurt yourself little boy

lol

[igloo]

lol

Wow...that was a good one. Hope you didn't strain yourself on that one silly little blowhard. Tool

[ou812]