Is it Terrorism or is it Religion? Does the
Question Matter?
By William Blum
December 08, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - From the early days of
America’s War on Terror, and even before then, I advocated seeing
terrorists as more than just mindless, evil madmen from another
planet. I did not believe they were motivated by hatred or envy of
American freedom or democracy, or of American wealth, secular
government, or culture, although George W. Bush dearly wanted us to
believe that. The terrorists were, I maintained, driven by decades
of terrible things done to their homelands by US foreign policy.
There should be no doubt of this I wrote, for there are numerous
examples of Middle East terrorists explicitly citing American
policies as the prime motivation behind their actions. And it worked
the same all over the world. In the period of the 1950s to the 1980s
in Latin America, in response to a long string of outrageous
Washington interventions, there were countless acts of terrorism
against US diplomatic and military targets as well as the offices of
US corporations. 9/11 was a globalized version of the Columbine High
School disaster. When you bully people long enough they are going to
strike back.
In 2006 Osama bin Laden was inspired to tell
Americans to read my book Rogue State because it contained the
following and other similar thoughts of mine: “If I were the
president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States
in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize – very publicly
and very sincerely – to all the widows and the orphans, the
impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other
victims of American imperialism.”
So does this mean that I support ISIS?
Absolutely not. I think they’re one of the most
disgusting collection of supposed humans in all of history. But I’m
surprised at how often those who are highly critical of them, and
supportive of the movement to defeat them, are very reluctant to
denounce ISIS as a religious force; this, apparently, would
be politically incorrect. Shortly after the terrible November 13
events in Paris I was watching the French English-language TV
station France 24, which presented a round-table discussion
of what happened in Paris amongst four or five French intellectual
types. Not one of them expressed a negative word about Islam; it was
all sociology, politics, economics, psychology, history, Western
oppression, etc., etc. Hadn’t any of them ever heard any of the
perpetrators or their supporters cry out “Allahu Akbar”?
I then read a detailed review of an article by
Thomas Piketty, the French author of the much-acclaimed 700-page
opus Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the international
best-seller of last year. According to the review in Le Monde,
Piketty said that inequality is a major driver of Middle Eastern
terrorism, including the Paris attacks, and that Western nations
have themselves largely to blame for that inequality. Terrorism that
is rooted in inequality, he maintains, is best combatted
economically. Not a word about Muhammad in the 7th century, Sharia
Law in the 21st century, or anything in between.
Next, by contrast, we turn to an interview with
Mizanur Rahman, one of social media’s most famous promoters of the
Islamic State, whom Britain and the US consider to be a recruiter
for ISIS. British authorities closely monitor his movements and have
taken his passport. He wears a court-mandated electronic ankle
bracelet.
Rahman is known for his thousands of tweets and
Facebook posts, and fiery lectures on YouTube, intended to inspire
vulnerable young people. He openly advocates for a global caliphate,
a homeland ruled by Islamic sharia law, which he says is a superior
political, legal and economic system to democracy. The Islamic
State’s black flag will one day fly over the White House he insists,
adding that the militants will probably conquer Washington by
military force, but he watches his words carefully to avoid being
accused of advocating violence. Still, he argues, the concept of
spreading Islam by force is no less honorable than Western countries
invading Iraq or Afghanistan to spread democracy. [I wonder if he
really believes that Western foreign policy has anything to do with
spreading democracy.]
Rahman called last month’s Islamic State attacks
in Paris “an inevitable consequence” of French participation in
coalition airstrikes against the militants’ de facto
capital in Raqqa, Syria. “I don’t think anybody should really be
surprised at what happened,” he said. “In war, people bomb each
other. I think it’s an opportunity for the French people to
empathize with the people in Raqqa, who suffer very similar impact
whenever the French airstrikes hit them – the civilian casualties,
the shock, the stress. The anger that they must be feeling toward
the Islamic State right now is the same kind of anger that the
people of Iraq and Syria feel towards France.”
He argues that it is no worse for the Islamic
State to behead American journalists than for the United States to
kill Muslim civilians in drone strikes. “I’m promoting sharia
because I think it’s the best,” Rahman, a former accountant and web
designer, said in the London coffee shop interview. “I think it is
better than what we have, and what is wrong with saying that?”
[Nothing unless you enjoy music, sex, and alcohol and find praying
five times a day highly oppressive.)
In August, Rahman was charged in Britain with
“inviting support” for the Islamic State, and he faces up to 10
years in prison if convicted. He is free on bail under strict
conditions, including the ankle bracelet.
Rahman called the allegations against him
ridiculous and anti-Muslim persecution. He said that he has done
nothing more than preach the virtues of Islam and that he has never
specifically recruited anyone to join the Islamic State or urged
anyone to commit violence.
“Islam is more than just a book with an old story.
It’s actually a code for life,” he said, adding that Islam is a
blueprint for everything from personal hygiene to international
relations. “It’s not just some medieval rantings.”
Rahman’s first arrest was in February 2002, when
he was fined 50 pounds for defacing posters for a pop band that
featured scantily clad women, something he considered indecent. [But
forcing women to walk around fully covered from head to toe, with
only their eyes showing, is not indecent? And what woman in the
entire world would dress like that without great pressure from a
male-dominated society?]
Peter Neumann, head of the International Center
for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College in London stated
that Rahman is skilled at persuading Muslims that it is their
religious obligation to swear allegiance to the Islamic State
leader, arguing that God wants the world united under a caliphate,
without ever overtly calling for them to move to Syria or Iraq.
[How, we must ask, does Rahman know what God wants? There are
countless individuals all over the world confined to institutions
for committing violence which, they insisted, was in response to God
talking to them.]
The couple in California … The only explanation my
poor pagan mind can offer for their unspeakable behavior is
“martyrdom”. They knew that their action would, in all likelihood,
result in their death and they believed what they had been taught –
oh so profoundly taught in the Kuran and drummed into their heads
elsewhere like only religion can – that for martyrs there are
heavenly rewards in the afterlife … forever.
“With or without religion, good people will do
good things and bad people will do bad things. But for good people
to do bad things – that takes religion.”
Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist
Questions to ask President Obama the next
time (also the last time) you’re invited to one of his press
conferences:
Which is most important to you – destroying
ISIS, overthrowing Syrian president Assad, or scoring points
against Russia?
Do you think that if you pointed out to the
American people that Assad has done much more to aid and rescue
Christians in the Middle East conflicts than any other area
leader that this would lessen the hostility the United States
public and media feel toward him? Or do you share the view of
the State Department spokesperson who declared in September that
“The Assad regime frankly is the root of all evil”?
Why does the United States maintain crippling
financial sanctions and a ban on military aid to Syria, Cuba,
Iran and other countries but not to Saudi Arabia?
What does Saudi Arabia have to do to lose its
strong American support? Increase its torture, beheadings,
amputations, whippings, stonings, punishment for blasphemy and
apostasy, or forced marriages and other oppression of women and
girls? Increase its financial support for ISIS and other
jihadist groups? Confess to its role in 9-11? Attack Israel?
What bothers you more: The Saudi bombing of
the people of Yemen or the Syrian bombing of the people of
Syria?
Does the fact that ISIS never attacks Israel
raise any question in your mind?
Does it concern you that Turkey appears to be
more intent upon attacking the Kurds and the Russians than
attacking ISIS? And provides medical care to wounded ISIS
soldiers? Or that ISIS deals its oil on Turkish territory? Or
that NATO-member Turkey has been a safe haven for terrorists
from Libya, Chechnya, Qatar, and elsewhere? Or that last year
Vice President Biden stated that Turkish president Erdogan’s
regime was backing ISIS with “hundreds of millions of dollars
and thousands of tons of weapons”?
If NATO had never existed, what argument could
you give today in favor of creating such an institution? Other
than – as some would say – being a very useful handmaiden of US
foreign policy and providing American arms manufacturers with
trillions of dollars of guaranteed sales.
Does the United States plan on releasing any
of its alleged evidence to back up its repeated claims of Syrian
bombing and chemical warfare against the Syrian people? Like
clear photos or videos from the omnipresent American satellite
cameras? Or any other credible evidence?
Does the United States plan on releasing any
of its alleged evidence to back up its repeated claims of
Russian invasions of Ukraine in the past year? Like clear photos
or videos from the omnipresent American satellite cameras? Or
any other credible evidence?
Do the numerous connections between the
Ukrainian government and neo-Nazis have any effect upon
America’s support of Ukraine?
What do you imagine would have been the
outcome in World War Two if the United States had opposed Soviet
entry into the war because “Stalin must go”?
Would you prefer that Russia played no
military role at all in Syria?
Can the administration present in person a few
of the Syrian opposition “moderates” we’ve heard so much about
and allow the media to interview them?
Have you considered honoring your promise of
“No boots on the ground in Syria” by requiring all American
troops to wear sneakers?
Don’t tell my mother I work at the State
Department. She thinks I play the piano in a whore house.
Excerpts from a State Department daily press
briefing, November 24, 2015, following the Turkish shootdown of
a Russian plane, conducted by Mark Toner, Deputy Spokesperson:
QUESTION: President Obama said he will reach
out to President Erdogan over the next few days.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Did not mention Putin. That really
puts you squarely on Turkey’s side, doesn’t it?
……………………
QUESTION: You’re saying Turkey has the right
to defend itself; President Obama said the same thing. What
defense are you talking about? Does anyone think Russia was
going to attack Turkey?
MR TONER: Again, I mean, this is –
QUESTION: Do you think so?
MR TONER: Look, I don’t want to parse out this
incident. I said very clearly that we don’t know all the facts
yet, so for me to speak categorically about what happened is –
frankly, would be irresponsible.
……………………
QUESTION: Even if you accept the Turkish
version that the plane traveled 1.3 miles inside Turkey and
violated its airspace for 17 seconds – that’s according to
Turkey – do you think shooting down the plane was the right
thing to do?
MR TONER: Again, I’m not going to give you our
assessment at this point. We’re still gathering the facts.
……………………
QUESTION: In 2012, Syria shot down a Turkish
plane that reportedly strayed into its territory. Prime Minister
Erdogan then said, “A short-term border violation can never be a
pretext for an attack.” Meanwhile, NATO has expressed its
condemnation of Syria’s attack as well as strong support for
Turkey. Do you see the inconsistency of NATO’s response on this?
MR TONER: As to what President Erdogan may
have said after that incident, I would refer you to him.
……………………
QUESTION: Turkoman forces in Syria said they
killed the two Russian pilots as they descended in parachutes.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Turkoman forces are supported by
Turkey and are fighting against the Syrian Government, they are
part of the rebel force there. Do you consider these rebels to
be a moderate force in Syria?
……………………
QUESTION: I’m trying – I mean, do you think
that everybody has the right to defend themselves?
MR TONER: We’ve said very clearly that people
have the right to defend themselves.
QUESTION: Right? Including the Assad regime?
MR TONER: No.
William Blum is an
author, historian, and renowned critic of U.S. foreign policy.
He is the author of
Killing
Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
and
Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower,
among others. williamblum.org
Notes
