Spoiled rich suicide bombers

Class warfare, Islamist style

Excerpts:

When you read reports that the Muslim terrorists who bombed the London Underground may have gotten together for a pre-attack whitewater rafting trip in Wales, you realize that this is a very particular enemy ? and one that is recognizable to students of history.

This is the revolt of the privileged, Islamic version. They have risen so far, so fast in the dizzying culture of the West that they have become enraged, disoriented and vulnerable to manipulation.

Their spiritual leader is the son of a Saudi billionaire, who grew up with big ideas and too much money...

Reading some of the London bombers' biographies, you realize the depth of their cultural confusion: "Shahzad Tanweer, 23, came from one of Beeston's most respected families," wrote The London Independent about one of the July 7 bombers. And according to The Washington Post, he had just received a red Mercedes from his dad.

This is not Patty Hearst or the Weather Underground - it's a far more deadly revolt of privilege. But people who were students in the 1960s will remember the phenomenon: The kids from elite public and private schools who went to college, felt guilty about their comfort amid a brutal world, and joined the Progressive Labor Party to ally with oppressed Third World workers. There is a cult aspect to this jihad - an extreme version of the logic that has always drawn disaffected kids to self-destructive behavior...

According to Vincenzo Oliveti in his fine study of the Salafists, titled "Terror's Source," their religious teaching casts aside the traditional canon - the "Sunna" that make up Sunni Islam - in favor of a have-it-your-way smorgasbord. A favorite saying of the Salafists, according to Oliveti, is nahnu rijal wa hum rijal, which he translates loosely as "We are all men so why should we accept that anybody knows better than us?"

What will stop this revolt of privileged Muslims? One possibility is that it will be checked by the same process that derailed the revolt of the rich kids in America after the 1960s - namely, the counter-revolt of the poor kids. Poor Muslims simply can't afford the rebellion of their wealthy brethren, and the havoc it has brought to the House of Islam. For make no mistake: The people suffering from jihadism are mostly Muslims...

I say:

And Muslims are increasingly getting fed up with the terrorists. Even in places where the government has long used the West as a scapegoat. Isalmofascism is showing its true face and losing support thereby.

No wonder the Left love these murderous lunatics. It's a filial recognition. "Hey, we're all spoiled rich neurotic f***wits here!" But our brand of these a**holes mostly just run interference for mass murderers. These guys *are* the mass murderers.

The rich are arrogant at best, and frequently insane. The trust fund kiddies are the worst - no contact with reality at any point. And the poor are largely powerless. Besides, the poor as such don't constitute a clearly identifiable class with a single value system. Salvation lies with the middle class. Long live the bourgeois revolution!

Oh, and a shout out to our freedom loving brethen being repressed in Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Myanmar and elsewhere. Keep the faith, and don't let the bastards grind you down. Uncle Sam and friends will bail you out in time.

Likewise the Dalits, and the Muslims in Gujarat. The current administration's policy on India reeks of realpolitik, but we'll get it right eventually. The Iraqi Kurds and Shia Arabs also had to wait, but not in vain.



Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/politics.world.html#20050727

London: The Pakistani (and Saudi) Connection

Stephen Schwartz spells it out

Excerpt:
Western academics and journalists are often at pains to distinguish between the Jamaatis and Wahhabism, which is the state religion in Saudi Arabia. But differences in theological details, although they do exist, are secondary; mainly, the Saudi Wahhabis hold to a deceptive alliance with the Western powers, while the Jamaatis were always frontally anti-Western. The Jamaatis study in Saudi Arabia and share with the Wahhabis a murderous hatred of Muslims who do not conform to their ideology, considering those who reject their teachings to be apostates from Islam. They regularly massacre Shia Muslims, in particular, in Pakistani cities. They also completely reject participation by Muslim immigrants in the political and social institutions of Western countries in which they live, and they consider suicide terror legitimate. Pakistan has very few energy resources, and the Saudis have used cheap oil to support Wahhabi infiltration. In the system of radical Islam, if Saudi Arabia may be compared with the former Soviet state, Pakistan could be a parallel to the former East Germany.

For these reasons, the identification of four British-born Muslims of Pakistani origin as the perpetrators of the London atrocity comes as no surprise to those who have been paying attention to these matters. The seething, ferocious rhetoric heard in Pakistani Sunni mosques, at Friday services every week in outlying cities such as Leeds, is far more insidious, as the London events may show, than the antics engaged in by Arab loudmouths like the Syrian Omar Bakri Muhammad, the hook-handed Egyptian Abu Hamza al-Masri, or the bogus Saudi dissident Saad al-Faqih, all of who mainly perform for non-Muslim media attention.

Social marginalization and underemployment of second generation ethnic Pakistani youth in Britain may be cited as a cause for the extremist appeal among them; but the constant drumming of the Jamaati message from the pulpit is much more significant. It is interesting to hear first-generation Pakistani Sunnis in Britain claim shock and surprise at the presence of terrorists among them. Pakistani Islamist radicalism dominates British Islam much as the "Wahhabi Lobby" in America monopolizes the voice of the Muslim community on our shores.

I say:
But it's traditional these days to blame the victim. Shouldn't the British ask themselves why?
Excerpt:
It is also becoming clear that the government thought the British public would turn on their Muslim neighbors if it were told the truth. The police themselves have contributed to the myth that the real problem now facing us is not Islam, but Islamophobia. There have been a handful of incidents since last Thursday, but certainly nothing that could be called a backlash.

Yet the desire to prove that London's Metropolitan Police is not Islamophobic has created grotesque examples of political correctness. Scotland Yard is contributing $15,000 of taxpayers' money to enable a Swiss Islamist academic who is a recognized apologist for terrorism, Tariq Ramadan, to address a conference of young Muslims in London next month, despite knowing full well that Mr. Ramadan had been banned from America.

The result of this bad faith between the government and the governed is quite serious. Now that at last we know who and what we are up against, we are no longer sure that the authorities are on our side. The police protect Islam - I saw two constables standing guard outside the local mosque yesterday morning - but they are powerless to protect the rest of society against the Islamists. Exhorted to be vigilant, people fear accusations of Islamophobia if they voice their suspicions. It is so much easier to blame the Iraq war or the Americans or the Israelis than to face the horrific truth: that we now have a fifth column, nameless, faceless, and utterly ruthless, dedicated to transforming Britain into an Islamic republic.

I say:
Appeasmement policies made it easier for these bastards to posion the minds of young and impressionable Brits. But meanwhile, our tough stance on terror worldwide seems to be yielding results

Excerpt:
Osama bin Laden's standing has dropped significantly in some key Muslim countries, while support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has "declined dramatically," according to a new survey released today.

In a striking finding, predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle East and Asian countries also shared to "a considerable degree" Western nations' concerns about Islamic extremism, the survey found. Many in those Muslim nations see it as threat to their own country, the poll found.

I say:
And since someone's bound to bring it up, here's a roundup of Saddam links to al Qaeda.



Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/politics.world.html#20050714

Rule Brittania

First, for those who believe in polls, this.
Excerpt:
The response of Tony Blair and his ministers to the attacks has clearly boosted the standing of both. Early this year, twice as many people said they were dissatisfied with Mr Blair as Prime Minister as said the opposite. In the aftermath of Thursday's bombings, Mr Blair's approval rating has flipped from negative to positive for the first time in five years.

Moreover, the bombings have failed - despite Mr George Galloway's best efforts - to undermine support for the British presence in Iraq. The proportion wanting British troops brought home quickly has fallen and the proportion who now want Britain to retain its close ties with the US has risen. The section of the chart headed "Assessing performance" tells a story of which Britons can be proud.

A massive 95 per cent of YouGov's respondents believe that on Thursday London's emergency services responded either magnificently (71 per cent) or very well (24 per cent). More than two thirds, 71 per cent, give comparably high marks to the Prime Minister and his Government.

Only Britain's intelligence services - for obvious reasons - fare less well. A third of YouGov's respondents, 33 per cent, accord their performance an equally high rating.

As figures in the chart show, virtually the whole nation, 90 per cent, applauds Londoners' courage and calm under fire and Tony Blair's satisfaction rating has shot up from a mediocre 32 per cent at the beginning of this year to a creditable 49 per cent now.

That said, people are far from sanguine about the future. Almost everyone, 92 per cent, reckons that another terrorist attack on a British target is now either "very likely" (45 per cent) or "fairly likely" (47 per cent).

However, the proportion fearing that they themselves or a close family member or friend might be killed or injured in such an attack has not risen significantly. People have clearly thought for a long time that a terrorist attack was probable, but most people evidently have no intention of changing the way they live.

I say:

What polls like this measure is the froth of sentiment. They don't directly measure the underlying substance, but they do give a hint at it, if you interpret them correctly. What we have here is the immediate emotional reaction of everyday Englishmen. In time, the readings will regress toward the mean. But what's significant here is the *direction* of the twitch. These people are not cowed, and they know that the ones to blame for terrorism are the terrorists.

The law of averages dictated that sooner or later London would suffer an Islamist terrorist attack. Every major city will, sooner or later, unless we destroy Islamism before they get around to all of them. Now we know how the people of England will react.

In terms of numbers killed, this may not compare to 9/11 - in fact, each of these terror attacks is less bloody than the last, as the enemy's ability to attack us seems to decline - but this isn't the point. the point is, they intended to terrorise the English, and it looks very much as if they have failed.

Our mother country is a tough old bird, and she still has some fight in her.

Finally, if you don't something just a bit sappy, here are some graphic expressions of defiance from around Europe. I especially like the kid on the tank.

Sadly, there are some commentators in the UK berating their antiterror security for not preventing this. You can't prevent a terrorist attack by way of security provisions. You can only delay it. The only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to destroy terrorism as such. This is *not* a law enforcement problem. This is a clash of civilizations. Fight it as such. And fight to win.

Defense is not enough. Think counterattack. Destroy the cultures of ignorance and repression that breed these monsters. Replace the United Nations with an infrastructure designed to extend and preserve democracy and human rights by force of arms. (And no, human rights does not mean coddling unlawful combatants.) Ram democracy down the throats of Asia, Africa, South America, until the whole planet is free. Then we can relax.

Imperialist, you say? Whatever. I prefer to think of it as our internationalist work. Spread the revolution.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/politics.world.html#20050710