What's new

Preventing Terrorism Requires Radical Change

Do you agree of disagree with the author of the article's proposition?


  • Total voters
    9

Luffy 500

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 2, 2012
5,562
2
7,420
[https://www.islam21c.com/politics/preventing-terrorism-requires-radical-change/


terrorism-1.jpg



In trying to prevent terrorism at home, the West must leave the Muslim world


Sir Isaac Newton’s famous ‘Third Law’ stipulates that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. This profound principle and logical theory can be applied to a plethora of tangible realities, and is how I tend to make sense of human warfare – especially, the West’s “home-grown terrorism” quagmire with “Islamism”.[1] Where Newton’s ‘Third Law’ states that every action has an “equal and opposite reaction,” the proportionality of “actions” and their subsequent “reactions” significantly vary when analysing the dynamics of the War on Terror in relation to violence committed by state actors in comparison to non-state actors, which are neither “equal” nor “opposite” – though a “reaction” from either belligerent is certainly inevitable.


I would argue that the domestic terror threat from “Islamist jihadists” in the West is, generally speaking, a direct “reaction” to military intervention, political interference and historical injustices committed by Western powers in the Muslim majority world. However, the deplorable violence carried out by non-state actors like ISIS cells and Al Qaeda inspired lone wolves are neither “equal” nor “opposite” in their reaction – whether one quantifies this via death toll or by the usage of sophisticated warfare.


Before I proceed with elaborating on the above, I want to briefly touch upon three prevalent strands of thinking presented by western academics,[2] think-tanks,[3] and politicians who have attempted to explain this problem with Islamism – both its violent and non-violent forms.[4]


Prevalent arguments


Some commentators come from the perspective that the global War on Terror is an ideological conflict between modern secular liberal pluralism and an intolerant, politicised and out-dated interpretation of Islām, which has yet to undergo a systematic process of reformation like Christianity did in Europe during the 16th century.[5] This line of thinking perceives the current ‘struggle’ as a battle of hearts and minds, where military intervention can be ‘justified’ when necessary – whilst the more desired strategy is to support Muslim civil society groups, reformist movements, and secularists in the West and abroad.


Others have presented a more orientalist and Manichean reading of the current conflict – one between two Abrahamic faiths with expansionist ambitions: Western Christendom and the Islamic East, which have been at loggerheads since the dawn of Islām and its initial battles and conquests of Byzantium territories, right through to the Crusades and up to World War One with the subsequent abolishment of the Ottoman Empire.[6][7] This line of thinking perceives the War on Terror as a mere continuation of a civilisational conflict which has been ongoing for over a thousand years. This school of thought also favours military intervention abroad and draconian counter-terrorism laws at home to contain the threat of Islamism.


Both groups have numerous variations within the political spectrum between the left and the right – from neoliberalism and neo-conservatism to the far-left and the far-right. But whilst far-right populism is undeniably on the rise in the West due to various socio-political and economic factors,[8] it was neither the far-right nor the far-left that were responsible for the most recent conflicts which have destabilised the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan under the banner of the War on Terror.[9]


There is a third group, and it too has its own sub-groups. It comprises of those who, whilst believing in aspects of an ideological conflict with Islamism, accept to differing degrees that historical and contemporary injustices committed by Western powers in the Muslim majority world has significantly contributed to the problem of domestic terrorism.[10] The birth of ‘Islamism’ is understood by them as a post-colonial reactionary ideology that is culturally rooted in discourse not entirely alien to the Muslim world. Dubbed by their critics as “liberals”,[11] “Islamist apologists” and “regressive lefties” – what makes this strand of thinking unique is that it has never manifested into state policy.[12][13][14]


Whilst I do not entirely accept the ideological premises of the third group, I cannot deny the arguments that historical crimes and foreign policy injustices committed by Western powers in the Muslim majority world have been causative factors in politically motivated violence perpetrated by a handful of Muslims in mainland Europe and the United States since 2001.[15][16] It is also important to note that those who consistently cite historical and contemporary grievances do not necessarily enjoy the mainstream platforms, state funding or media limelight as compared to those who advocate an interventionist, draconian and reformist approach to tackling the “Islamist terror threat”.


Basic, but important definitions


Before I proceed with proposing a radical solution to significantly decrease the threat of “home-grown” terrorism, I must state that there are Muslim “equivalents” of the aforementioned schools of thought that exist all over the world and that they are not exclusive to non-Muslim academics, thinkers and political movements in the West.


Let us start by defining “Islamism”. While there are many frequently used definitions, the most popular is:



“A political interpretation of Islām which seeks to establish an autocratic government ruled by Sharīah law.”


What I understand “Islamism” to be when it is described by policymakers and the corporate media is:


“A Muslim who adheres to Islamic laws and values in their private and public life, as well as believing in the undisputed truth of Islām as the only salvation for humanity”.


Why do I believe this? Because a “Muslim” is the one who submits in totality to the will of God and “Islām” means to “submit” to God, and through this submission a Muslim attains peace (the “peace” is conditional to submission).


Lastly, what is “terrorism”? “The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”


Can this widely accepted definition of “terrorism” be applied to the actions carried out by modern nation states or liberal democracies? Of course, it can. However, is it applied by Western governments, the United Nations, the European Union, or NATO when referring to illegal wars,[17]complicity in war crimes,[18] genocide and human right abuses committed by the West and their allies?[19][20][21] Rarely, if ever. The term “terrorism” tends to be exclusively reserved for non-state actors or “rogue states” that Western governments bear grudges with.[22] Therefore, for the remainder of this article, the term “terrorism” will be equally applied to actions committed by western countries as well as non-state actors.


Leave the Muslim world alone


The following is my 10-point solution to significantly limiting the “Islamist terror threat” in the West. Taking into consideration that practically everything from de-radicalisation programmes,[23]funding Muslim reformers to endless domestic countering-violent extremism policies have been tried,[24][25] tested and arguably failed,[26] the only strategy that remains is to holistically review Western foreign policy in the Muslim majority world:


1. Bring back all Western soldiers including NATO and UN troops, as well as secret service personnel stationed in Muslim countries.[27]

2. Close down all military bases in Muslim countries whilst keeping Western embassies and diplomats there.[28]

3. Review the West’s unstinted relationship with Israel.[29][30]

4. Stop propping up despotic regimes that oppress, kill and imprison non-violent political and religious opposition groups.[31]

5. Stop invading and occupying Muslim countries and monopolising their natural resources.[32]

6. Stop meddling in the political affairs and “derailing democracy” in Muslim countries. If Muslims want to be ruled by Islamists and governed by Shariah law then so be it.[33]

7. Stop selling arms to regimes that go onto use these weapons against their own people or neighbouring countries, which further destabilises the region.[34] [35]

8. Stop criminalising non-violent Islamic movements and Muslim resistance groups under the disingenuous and irrational pretext of “combating terrorism”.[36][37]

9. Shutdown all secret torture camps and prisons in Muslim countries that are used for illegal rendition.[38]

10. Respect the land, air and maritime sovereignty of Muslim countries.[39]

I know what you’re thinking – the above is too far-fetched and outrageous to even dream of, let alone be uttered as a solution. Well of course it is! Because to implement my 10-point proposal ultimately means for Western governments to have a miraculous epiphany in minding their own business, and stop acting as modern day Romans.[40] As well as minding their own business, Western governments need to fundamentally abandon their neo-colonial mindset,[41] ideological arrogance,[42] and hegemonic approach to how they perceive and deal with the Muslim world.[43]


A case of survival and safeguarding


But this will never happen. Simply because there is too much at stake.[44] The geopolitical and economic implications of even remotely implementing half of what I have proposed is for Western governments, namely the US, Britain and France, to essentially allow other powers, be it Russia or China, or Muslim countries such as Pakistan or Turkey to undo the hard work of their colonial forefathers.[45] [46]


In addition to this, since the onset of the War on Terror, American and British military generals and security officials have consistently stated that countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Egypt, and now Syria, are important to contain, amongst other reasons, due to the “evil ideology” of Islamism, which seeks to resurrect a polity – the Caliphate – in an attempt to revive the medieval golden age of Islamic civilisation.[47][48][49][50]


Putting the barbaric and unIslamic practices of ISIS aside (who were born out of the US-led invasion of Iraq),[51] Western think-tanks have also stated that the likelihood of such a polity re-emerging from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire is not something that should be dismissed – especially given the Islamic world’s track record of leading humanity in the arts and sciences, as well as stretching its authority deep into Spain, the Balkans, the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe.[52]


With all these hypothetically undesirable scenarios troubling western policymakers, why would they be stupid enough to just pack up, leave and abandon their geopolitical safeguarding and survival measures?


Forgive me for presenting such a daunting reality that may read like a Manichean translation of Samuel Huntingdon’s ‘Clash of civilisations’,[53] but I genuinely believe there are undeniable truths to what I have stated.[54] Francis Fukuyama’s gross assumption that mankind had reached the “end of history” in the advent of Western liberal democracy, which apparently signalled the endpoint of human government, was simply a fallacy.[55] The secular nation-state and liberal democracy should not be blindly accepted as the eternal form of nationhood or government, especially as the former is barely two hundred years old! However, what should be acknowledged is the industrial scale death and destruction that has resulted from the birth of secular nation states – just the twentieth century alone has resulted in more than 87.5 million deaths according to former US national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezunski.[56][57]


And it is in light of this context and paradigm that we must try to understand where and how the West’s paranoia of Islamist inspired terrorism fits in. From trying to contain existing superpowers, to violently preventing the birth of an Islamist empire, tackling domestic terrorism is ultimately the circular game of how the West manages to stop the chickens from coming home to roost. And these chickens are not just motivated by War on Terror foreign policy grievances, they include historical grievances dating back to European colonialism and World War One,[58] with the unnatural borders of the Sykes-Picot Agreement still affecting the Middle East and North Africa today.[59] With the well-established and normative Islamic concept of “Ummah” (global community of Muslims bound together by Islām) it is impossible to deny that what I have discussed has affected the psyche of hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide.


To conclude, Western governments must look in the mirror and ask themselves the following questions which have glaringly obvious answers:


· * Did mass-scale Islamist inspired terrorism exist before 9/11 in the Western world? No.

· * Did poverty, high unemployment, “ghettoisation”, lack of integration, and racial and religious discrimination of Muslims exist in Europe before the War on terror? Yes.

· * Did these sociological and socioeconomic realities ever transpire into religiously or politically motivated violence before the War on Terror? No.[60]

· * Lastly, did Western powers begin their political and military interference in the Muslim majority world after 9/11? Of course not, it has been an on-going foreign policy for at least 150 years (in the case of Europe).[61][62][63]

Blaming the West and ignoring ideology


A legitimate counter-question would then be: what role does “Islamist”, “Salafist” or “jihadist” ideologies play in all of this? Surely, it cannot be entirely the West’s fault?


Ideology or theology does play a role – a very important one – but not a causative role which necessarily leads to violence.[64][65] Studies carried out by social scientists and the British secret services have found that the perpetrators of Islamist terrorism in the West are usually religious novices who justified violence through the language, culture or religion they felt most comfortable with.[66][67] In the same way Christian terrorists, Jewish extremists, Hindu fundamentalists, Irish Republicans, South American communists, and Kurdish separatists (PKK) all justify violence through the distorted language of their respective worldviews, the lone wolves and terror cells of ISIS are no different.


There is an argument that if Western powers militarily abandoned the Muslim world, nihilistic groups like ISIS would continue to attack mainland Europe. But there are two very simple points which would nullify this unsubstantiated assumption.


Firstly, ISIS was born out of the industrial scale death and destruction of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[68] Therefore, the desire to seek revenge would not immediately diminish, especially as the wounds of losing Mosul and being bombed in Raqqa by Western forces are still very fresh.


Secondly, the abandonment of Western military interference would have to be coupled with the abandonment of the West’s political interference in the Muslim world; which includes its support for Israel and other despotic dictators in the region, as well as selling weapons to these regimes – all of which has violent consequences that lead to grievances that are subsequently used to justify politically motivated crimes in the West.[69]


As for the wider issue of non-violent manifestations of “Islamism”, in more cases than not, they tend to be advocates of normative Islām who want to regain control of the Muslim world’s political destiny whilst safeguarding its Islamic identity from what they perceive to be a cultural invasion by the West.


As idealistic as the prospects of halting western interference and meddling in the Muslim majority world may seem due to the gravity of hegemonic geopolitics at stake, let us at least be honest enough to admit that the streets of North America and Europe were much safer from the threat of “Islamist terrorism” before the US-led War on Terror ensued. In the likely case that the status quo persists, let us at least reflect on the fact that, upon balance, our governments have made the conscious choice of maintaining unjust foreign policies at the calculated expense of our safety.


-------------------------------------

Notes:

[1] http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/606092/Islamist-Extremist-Islamic-State-ISIS-MI5-Britain-Andrew-Parker-Security-David-Cameron

[2] http://www.claystone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Claystone-rethinking-radicalisation.pdf

[3] http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs29.pdf

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/14/religion.july7

[5] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/not-war-terror-war-ideology

[6] https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/will-europe-finally-face-threat-islamism/

[7] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/23/mike-pompeo-religious-war/

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/europe/europe-far-right-political-parties-listy.html

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/george-w-bush-tony-blair-chilcot-report-iraq-war

[10] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-terrorism-uk-foreign-policy-manchester-terror-attack-tory-security-minister-ben-a7756861.html

[11] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-moksvold/the-lefts-problem-with-fr_b_8930598.html

[12] https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the-inner-workings-of-the-apologist-mindset/

[13] https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/tom-mills-narzanin-massoumi-david-miller-max-farrar/why-on-earth-would-leftists-go-out-of

[14] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-terrorism-uk-foreign-policy-manchester-terror-attack-tory-security-minister-ben-a7756861.html

[15] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html

[16] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/12/536870827/amnesty-says-u-s-led-coalition-may-have-committed-war-crimes-in-mosul

[17] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-john-prescott-says-tony-blair-led-uk-into-illegal-war-in-iraq-a7129106.html

[18] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/12/536870827/amnesty-says-u-s-led-coalition-may-have-committed-war-crimes-in-mosul

[19] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130

[20] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130

[21] https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

[22] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38868039

[23] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/20/almost-4000-people-were-referred-to-uk-deradicalisation-scheme-channel-last-year

[24] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/02/uk-government-covert-propaganda-stop-muslims-joining-isis

[25] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/05/politics-of-fear-britain-anti-extremism-prevent-government-radicalisation

[26] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/21/government-prevent-strategy-promoting-extremism-maina-kiai

[27] https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/

[28] http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/op-environment/middle-east/

[29] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2016-01-13/real-talk-israeli-settlements

[30] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/9645925/Britain-must-atone-for-its-sins-in-Palestine.html

[31] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-03-07/helping-hurts

[32] https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/

[33] https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/06/us-backed-coup-hijacks-egypts-revolution/

[34] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html

[35] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/saudi-arabia-admits-use-uk-made-cluster-bombs-yemen

[36] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/muslim-brotherhood-listing-as-terror-group-delayed/

[37] https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

[38] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/05/cia-rendition-countries-covert-support

[39] https://www.dawn.com/news/1029733

[40] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/01/donald-trump-has-fascinating-parallels-with-caligula-says-historian

[41] http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/19/08/2014/new-neo-colonialism-africa

[42] https://www.opendemocracy.net/north-africa-west-asia/tahir-zaman/political-islam-in-neoliberal-times

[43] http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

[44] http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

[45] http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/pentagon-plan-divide-and-rule-muslim-world-1690265165

[46] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-curse-of-sykes-picot-still-haunts-the-middle-east

[47] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWECbtxAHq8

[48] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/20/faces-2009-richard-dannatt-tory

[49] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/14/religion.july7

[50] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/20/faces-2009-richard-dannatt-tory

[51] https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/23/isis-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-us-led-war-on-iraq/

[52] http://www.futurebrief.com/project2020.pdf

[53] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1993-06-01/clash-civilizations

[54] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWECbtxAHq8

[55] https://ps321.community.uaf.edu/files/2012/10/Fukuyama-End-of-history-article.pdf

[56] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1993-06-01/out-control-global-turmoil-eve-21st-century

[57] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1993-06-01/out-control-global-turmoil-eve-21st-century

[58] http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/

[59] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-curse-of-sykes-picot-still-haunts-the-middle-east

[60] http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml

[61] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes

[62] https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/

[63] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes

[64] http://www.claystone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Claystone-rethinking-radicalisation.pdf

[65] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

[66] http://www.claystone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Claystone-rethinking-radicalisation.pdf

[67] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

[68] https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/23/isis-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-us-led-war-on-iraq/

[69] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html



_____________________________________________________


@TheLahoriGuy @Vapnope @Solomon2 @Zibago @Kaptaan @peacefan @Peaceful Civilian @ValerioAurelius @C130 @Vergennes @Penguin @The Sandman @SecularNationalist @waleed3601 @Louiq XIV

@T-123456 @SouI @Soumitra @Hell hound @Fenrir @livingdead @Jaanbaz

@Hamartia Antidote @haviZsultan @Sliver


I tagged mostly non-muslim westerners, secular liberal "muslims", and other anti-islam forumers who idolize the west and are the major proponent of western secular imperialism over the Muslim majority world. I believe most of these people believe in the current western "war on terror" narrative where Islam needs to be deformed to suit western liberal expectations and Islam is blamed for terrorism. Lets see what their views are on this very logical proposition for ending global terrorism. The author btw is a bonafide British Muslim journalist.
 
Ok so let me get this straight you are saying if we are against extremist narrative we support American War Empire?
Buddy these two things are mutually exclusive you can hate both at the same time and still be for a less radicalized society

Haha you voted for yourself you evil Muslim i hate you :D
@Hell hound @Moonlight @The Sandman @I.R.A

Lets see what their views are on this very logical proposition for ending global terrorism.
Close the god damn money route to terrorists and stop aiding radical organizations and toppling govts the Empire of Destruction needs to find a new hobby
On one hand they claim to fight terrorists and on the other hand they fund the same folks
 
Ok so let me get this straight you are saying if we are against extremist narrative we support American War Empire?
Buddy these two things are mutually exclusive you can hate both at the same time and still be for a less radicalized society

Haha you voted for yourself you evil Muslim i hate you :D
@Hell hound @Moonlight @The Sandman @I.R.A
That childish poll shows clearly that this thread shouldn't be taken seriously imo. He's already giving out tags of "anti Islam" so even you know where this will end up. haha
 
The comfort by which mediocre people label others is staggering, but what else can be expected from mediocre people.
The thing is clear, you have to detach from popular narrative yet never let go of the thing called introspection. I don't remember if i ever supported west invasion to any country, neither i am supportive of the stereotype be it from Muslim world against Jews or Bigoted westerners against Muslims.
Muslim world needs reform that can only come from within.
 
[https://www.islam21c.com/politics/preventing-terrorism-requires-radical-change/


terrorism-1.jpg



In trying to prevent terrorism at home, the West must leave the Muslim world


Sir Isaac Newton’s famous ‘Third Law’ stipulates that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. This profound principle and logical theory can be applied to a plethora of tangible realities, and is how I tend to make sense of human warfare – especially, the West’s “home-grown terrorism” quagmire with “Islamism”.[1] Where Newton’s ‘Third Law’ states that every action has an “equal and opposite reaction,” the proportionality of “actions” and their subsequent “reactions” significantly vary when analysing the dynamics of the War on Terror in relation to violence committed by state actors in comparison to non-state actors, which are neither “equal” nor “opposite” – though a “reaction” from either belligerent is certainly inevitable.


I would argue that the domestic terror threat from “Islamist jihadists” in the West is, generally speaking, a direct “reaction” to military intervention, political interference and historical injustices committed by Western powers in the Muslim majority world. However, the deplorable violence carried out by non-state actors like ISIS cells and Al Qaeda inspired lone wolves are neither “equal” nor “opposite” in their reaction – whether one quantifies this via death toll or by the usage of sophisticated warfare.


Before I proceed with elaborating on the above, I want to briefly touch upon three prevalent strands of thinking presented by western academics,[2] think-tanks,[3] and politicians who have attempted to explain this problem with Islamism – both its violent and non-violent forms.[4]


Prevalent arguments


Some commentators come from the perspective that the global War on Terror is an ideological conflict between modern secular liberal pluralism and an intolerant, politicised and out-dated interpretation of Islām, which has yet to undergo a systematic process of reformation like Christianity did in Europe during the 16th century.[5] This line of thinking perceives the current ‘struggle’ as a battle of hearts and minds, where military intervention can be ‘justified’ when necessary – whilst the more desired strategy is to support Muslim civil society groups, reformist movements, and secularists in the West and abroad.


Others have presented a more orientalist and Manichean reading of the current conflict – one between two Abrahamic faiths with expansionist ambitions: Western Christendom and the Islamic East, which have been at loggerheads since the dawn of Islām and its initial battles and conquests of Byzantium territories, right through to the Crusades and up to World War One with the subsequent abolishment of the Ottoman Empire.[6][7] This line of thinking perceives the War on Terror as a mere continuation of a civilisational conflict which has been ongoing for over a thousand years. This school of thought also favours military intervention abroad and draconian counter-terrorism laws at home to contain the threat of Islamism.


Both groups have numerous variations within the political spectrum between the left and the right – from neoliberalism and neo-conservatism to the far-left and the far-right. But whilst far-right populism is undeniably on the rise in the West due to various socio-political and economic factors,[8] it was neither the far-right nor the far-left that were responsible for the most recent conflicts which have destabilised the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan under the banner of the War on Terror.[9]


There is a third group, and it too has its own sub-groups. It comprises of those who, whilst believing in aspects of an ideological conflict with Islamism, accept to differing degrees that historical and contemporary injustices committed by Western powers in the Muslim majority world has significantly contributed to the problem of domestic terrorism.[10] The birth of ‘Islamism’ is understood by them as a post-colonial reactionary ideology that is culturally rooted in discourse not entirely alien to the Muslim world. Dubbed by their critics as “liberals”,[11] “Islamist apologists” and “regressive lefties” – what makes this strand of thinking unique is that it has never manifested into state policy.[12][13][14]


Whilst I do not entirely accept the ideological premises of the third group, I cannot deny the arguments that historical crimes and foreign policy injustices committed by Western powers in the Muslim majority world have been causative factors in politically motivated violence perpetrated by a handful of Muslims in mainland Europe and the United States since 2001.[15][16] It is also important to note that those who consistently cite historical and contemporary grievances do not necessarily enjoy the mainstream platforms, state funding or media limelight as compared to those who advocate an interventionist, draconian and reformist approach to tackling the “Islamist terror threat”.


Basic, but important definitions


Before I proceed with proposing a radical solution to significantly decrease the threat of “home-grown” terrorism, I must state that there are Muslim “equivalents” of the aforementioned schools of thought that exist all over the world and that they are not exclusive to non-Muslim academics, thinkers and political movements in the West.


Let us start by defining “Islamism”. While there are many frequently used definitions, the most popular is:



“A political interpretation of Islām which seeks to establish an autocratic government ruled by Sharīah law.”


What I understand “Islamism” to be when it is described by policymakers and the corporate media is:


“A Muslim who adheres to Islamic laws and values in their private and public life, as well as believing in the undisputed truth of Islām as the only salvation for humanity”.


Why do I believe this? Because a “Muslim” is the one who submits in totality to the will of God and “Islām” means to “submit” to God, and through this submission a Muslim attains peace (the “peace” is conditional to submission).


Lastly, what is “terrorism”? “The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”


Can this widely accepted definition of “terrorism” be applied to the actions carried out by modern nation states or liberal democracies? Of course, it can. However, is it applied by Western governments, the United Nations, the European Union, or NATO when referring to illegal wars,[17]complicity in war crimes,[18] genocide and human right abuses committed by the West and their allies?[19][20][21] Rarely, if ever. The term “terrorism” tends to be exclusively reserved for non-state actors or “rogue states” that Western governments bear grudges with.[22] Therefore, for the remainder of this article, the term “terrorism” will be equally applied to actions committed by western countries as well as non-state actors.


Leave the Muslim world alone


The following is my 10-point solution to significantly limiting the “Islamist terror threat” in the West. Taking into consideration that practically everything from de-radicalisation programmes,[23]funding Muslim reformers to endless domestic countering-violent extremism policies have been tried,[24][25] tested and arguably failed,[26] the only strategy that remains is to holistically review Western foreign policy in the Muslim majority world:


1. Bring back all Western soldiers including NATO and UN troops, as well as secret service personnel stationed in Muslim countries.[27]

2. Close down all military bases in Muslim countries whilst keeping Western embassies and diplomats there.[28]

3. Review the West’s unstinted relationship with Israel.[29][30]

4. Stop propping up despotic regimes that oppress, kill and imprison non-violent political and religious opposition groups.[31]

5. Stop invading and occupying Muslim countries and monopolising their natural resources.[32]

6. Stop meddling in the political affairs and “derailing democracy” in Muslim countries. If Muslims want to be ruled by Islamists and governed by Shariah law then so be it.[33]

7. Stop selling arms to regimes that go onto use these weapons against their own people or neighbouring countries, which further destabilises the region.[34] [35]

8. Stop criminalising non-violent Islamic movements and Muslim resistance groups under the disingenuous and irrational pretext of “combating terrorism”.[36][37]

9. Shutdown all secret torture camps and prisons in Muslim countries that are used for illegal rendition.[38]

10. Respect the land, air and maritime sovereignty of Muslim countries.[39]

I know what you’re thinking – the above is too far-fetched and outrageous to even dream of, let alone be uttered as a solution. Well of course it is! Because to implement my 10-point proposal ultimately means for Western governments to have a miraculous epiphany in minding their own business, and stop acting as modern day Romans.[40] As well as minding their own business, Western governments need to fundamentally abandon their neo-colonial mindset,[41] ideological arrogance,[42] and hegemonic approach to how they perceive and deal with the Muslim world.[43]


A case of survival and safeguarding


But this will never happen. Simply because there is too much at stake.[44] The geopolitical and economic implications of even remotely implementing half of what I have proposed is for Western governments, namely the US, Britain and France, to essentially allow other powers, be it Russia or China, or Muslim countries such as Pakistan or Turkey to undo the hard work of their colonial forefathers.[45] [46]


In addition to this, since the onset of the War on Terror, American and British military generals and security officials have consistently stated that countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Egypt, and now Syria, are important to contain, amongst other reasons, due to the “evil ideology” of Islamism, which seeks to resurrect a polity – the Caliphate – in an attempt to revive the medieval golden age of Islamic civilisation.[47][48][49][50]


Putting the barbaric and unIslamic practices of ISIS aside (who were born out of the US-led invasion of Iraq),[51] Western think-tanks have also stated that the likelihood of such a polity re-emerging from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire is not something that should be dismissed – especially given the Islamic world’s track record of leading humanity in the arts and sciences, as well as stretching its authority deep into Spain, the Balkans, the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe.[52]


With all these hypothetically undesirable scenarios troubling western policymakers, why would they be stupid enough to just pack up, leave and abandon their geopolitical safeguarding and survival measures?


Forgive me for presenting such a daunting reality that may read like a Manichean translation of Samuel Huntingdon’s ‘Clash of civilisations’,[53] but I genuinely believe there are undeniable truths to what I have stated.[54] Francis Fukuyama’s gross assumption that mankind had reached the “end of history” in the advent of Western liberal democracy, which apparently signalled the endpoint of human government, was simply a fallacy.[55] The secular nation-state and liberal democracy should not be blindly accepted as the eternal form of nationhood or government, especially as the former is barely two hundred years old! However, what should be acknowledged is the industrial scale death and destruction that has resulted from the birth of secular nation states – just the twentieth century alone has resulted in more than 87.5 million deaths according to former US national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezunski.[56][57]


And it is in light of this context and paradigm that we must try to understand where and how the West’s paranoia of Islamist inspired terrorism fits in. From trying to contain existing superpowers, to violently preventing the birth of an Islamist empire, tackling domestic terrorism is ultimately the circular game of how the West manages to stop the chickens from coming home to roost. And these chickens are not just motivated by War on Terror foreign policy grievances, they include historical grievances dating back to European colonialism and World War One,[58] with the unnatural borders of the Sykes-Picot Agreement still affecting the Middle East and North Africa today.[59] With the well-established and normative Islamic concept of “Ummah” (global community of Muslims bound together by Islām) it is impossible to deny that what I have discussed has affected the psyche of hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide.


To conclude, Western governments must look in the mirror and ask themselves the following questions which have glaringly obvious answers:


· * Did mass-scale Islamist inspired terrorism exist before 9/11 in the Western world? No.

· * Did poverty, high unemployment, “ghettoisation”, lack of integration, and racial and religious discrimination of Muslims exist in Europe before the War on terror? Yes.

· * Did these sociological and socioeconomic realities ever transpire into religiously or politically motivated violence before the War on Terror? No.[60]

· * Lastly, did Western powers begin their political and military interference in the Muslim majority world after 9/11? Of course not, it has been an on-going foreign policy for at least 150 years (in the case of Europe).[61][62][63]

Blaming the West and ignoring ideology


A legitimate counter-question would then be: what role does “Islamist”, “Salafist” or “jihadist” ideologies play in all of this? Surely, it cannot be entirely the West’s fault?


Ideology or theology does play a role – a very important one – but not a causative role which necessarily leads to violence.[64][65] Studies carried out by social scientists and the British secret services have found that the perpetrators of Islamist terrorism in the West are usually religious novices who justified violence through the language, culture or religion they felt most comfortable with.[66][67] In the same way Christian terrorists, Jewish extremists, Hindu fundamentalists, Irish Republicans, South American communists, and Kurdish separatists (PKK) all justify violence through the distorted language of their respective worldviews, the lone wolves and terror cells of ISIS are no different.


There is an argument that if Western powers militarily abandoned the Muslim world, nihilistic groups like ISIS would continue to attack mainland Europe. But there are two very simple points which would nullify this unsubstantiated assumption.


Firstly, ISIS was born out of the industrial scale death and destruction of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[68] Therefore, the desire to seek revenge would not immediately diminish, especially as the wounds of losing Mosul and being bombed in Raqqa by Western forces are still very fresh.


Secondly, the abandonment of Western military interference would have to be coupled with the abandonment of the West’s political interference in the Muslim world; which includes its support for Israel and other despotic dictators in the region, as well as selling weapons to these regimes – all of which has violent consequences that lead to grievances that are subsequently used to justify politically motivated crimes in the West.[69]


As for the wider issue of non-violent manifestations of “Islamism”, in more cases than not, they tend to be advocates of normative Islām who want to regain control of the Muslim world’s political destiny whilst safeguarding its Islamic identity from what they perceive to be a cultural invasion by the West.


As idealistic as the prospects of halting western interference and meddling in the Muslim majority world may seem due to the gravity of hegemonic geopolitics at stake, let us at least be honest enough to admit that the streets of North America and Europe were much safer from the threat of “Islamist terrorism” before the US-led War on Terror ensued. In the likely case that the status quo persists, let us at least reflect on the fact that, upon balance, our governments have made the conscious choice of maintaining unjust foreign policies at the calculated expense of our safety.


-------------------------------------

Notes:

[1] http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/606092/Islamist-Extremist-Islamic-State-ISIS-MI5-Britain-Andrew-Parker-Security-David-Cameron

[2] http://www.claystone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Claystone-rethinking-radicalisation.pdf

[3] http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs29.pdf

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/14/religion.july7

[5] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/not-war-terror-war-ideology

[6] https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/will-europe-finally-face-threat-islamism/

[7] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/23/mike-pompeo-religious-war/

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/europe/europe-far-right-political-parties-listy.html

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/george-w-bush-tony-blair-chilcot-report-iraq-war

[10] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-terrorism-uk-foreign-policy-manchester-terror-attack-tory-security-minister-ben-a7756861.html

[11] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-moksvold/the-lefts-problem-with-fr_b_8930598.html

[12] https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the-inner-workings-of-the-apologist-mindset/

[13] https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/tom-mills-narzanin-massoumi-david-miller-max-farrar/why-on-earth-would-leftists-go-out-of

[14] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-terrorism-uk-foreign-policy-manchester-terror-attack-tory-security-minister-ben-a7756861.html

[15] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html

[16] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/12/536870827/amnesty-says-u-s-led-coalition-may-have-committed-war-crimes-in-mosul

[17] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-john-prescott-says-tony-blair-led-uk-into-illegal-war-in-iraq-a7129106.html

[18] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/12/536870827/amnesty-says-u-s-led-coalition-may-have-committed-war-crimes-in-mosul

[19] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130

[20] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130

[21] https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

[22] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38868039

[23] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/20/almost-4000-people-were-referred-to-uk-deradicalisation-scheme-channel-last-year

[24] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/02/uk-government-covert-propaganda-stop-muslims-joining-isis

[25] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/05/politics-of-fear-britain-anti-extremism-prevent-government-radicalisation

[26] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/21/government-prevent-strategy-promoting-extremism-maina-kiai

[27] https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/

[28] http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/op-environment/middle-east/

[29] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2016-01-13/real-talk-israeli-settlements

[30] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/9645925/Britain-must-atone-for-its-sins-in-Palestine.html

[31] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-03-07/helping-hurts

[32] https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/

[33] https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/06/us-backed-coup-hijacks-egypts-revolution/

[34] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html

[35] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/saudi-arabia-admits-use-uk-made-cluster-bombs-yemen

[36] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/muslim-brotherhood-listing-as-terror-group-delayed/

[37] https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

[38] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/05/cia-rendition-countries-covert-support

[39] https://www.dawn.com/news/1029733

[40] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/01/donald-trump-has-fascinating-parallels-with-caligula-says-historian

[41] http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/19/08/2014/new-neo-colonialism-africa

[42] https://www.opendemocracy.net/north-africa-west-asia/tahir-zaman/political-islam-in-neoliberal-times

[43] http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

[44] http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

[45] http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/pentagon-plan-divide-and-rule-muslim-world-1690265165

[46] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-curse-of-sykes-picot-still-haunts-the-middle-east

[47] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWECbtxAHq8

[48] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/20/faces-2009-richard-dannatt-tory

[49] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/14/religion.july7

[50] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/20/faces-2009-richard-dannatt-tory

[51] https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/23/isis-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-us-led-war-on-iraq/

[52] http://www.futurebrief.com/project2020.pdf

[53] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1993-06-01/clash-civilizations

[54] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWECbtxAHq8

[55] https://ps321.community.uaf.edu/files/2012/10/Fukuyama-End-of-history-article.pdf

[56] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1993-06-01/out-control-global-turmoil-eve-21st-century

[57] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1993-06-01/out-control-global-turmoil-eve-21st-century

[58] http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/

[59] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-curse-of-sykes-picot-still-haunts-the-middle-east

[60] http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml

[61] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes

[62] https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/

[63] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes

[64] http://www.claystone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Claystone-rethinking-radicalisation.pdf

[65] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

[66] http://www.claystone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Claystone-rethinking-radicalisation.pdf

[67] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

[68] https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/23/isis-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-us-led-war-on-iraq/

[69] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html



_____________________________________________________


@TheLahoriGuy @Vapnope @Solomon2 @Zibago @Kaptaan @peacefan @Peaceful Civilian @ValerioAurelius @C130 @Vergennes @Penguin @The Sandman @SecularNationalist @waleed3601 @Louiq XIV

@T-123456 @SouI @Soumitra @Hell hound @Fenrir @livingdead @Jaanbaz

@Hamartia Antidote @haviZsultan @Sliver


I tagged mostly non-muslim westerners, secular liberal "muslims", and other anti-islam forumers who idolize the west and are the major proponent of western secular imperialism over the Muslim majority world. I believe most of these people believe in the current western "war on terror" narrative where Islam needs to be deformed to suit western liberal expectations and Islam is blamed for terrorism. Lets see what their views are on this very logical proposition for ending global terrorism. The author btw is a bonafide British Muslim journalist.

I appreciate that you bothered tagging the KUFFAR LIBERAL SECULAR MUNAFIQ WESTERN IMPERIALISTS.
But I hope you don't expect us to read this.
 
[https://www.islam21c.com/politics/preventing-terrorism-requires-radical-change/


terrorism-1.jpg



In trying to prevent terrorism at home, the West must leave the Muslim world


Sir Isaac Newton’s famous ‘Third Law’ stipulates that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. This profound principle and logical theory can be applied to a plethora of tangible realities, and is how I tend to make sense of human warfare – especially, the West’s “home-grown terrorism” quagmire with “Islamism”.[1] Where Newton’s ‘Third Law’ states that every action has an “equal and opposite reaction,” the proportionality of “actions” and their subsequent “reactions” significantly vary when analysing the dynamics of the War on Terror in relation to violence committed by state actors in comparison to non-state actors, which are neither “equal” nor “opposite” – though a “reaction” from either belligerent is certainly inevitable.


I would argue that the domestic terror threat from “Islamist jihadists” in the West is, generally speaking, a direct “reaction” to military intervention, political interference and historical injustices committed by Western powers in the Muslim majority world. However, the deplorable violence carried out by non-state actors like ISIS cells and Al Qaeda inspired lone wolves are neither “equal” nor “opposite” in their reaction – whether one quantifies this via death toll or by the usage of sophisticated warfare.


Before I proceed with elaborating on the above, I want to briefly touch upon three prevalent strands of thinking presented by western academics,[2] think-tanks,[3] and politicians who have attempted to explain this problem with Islamism – both its violent and non-violent forms.[4]


Prevalent arguments


Some commentators come from the perspective that the global War on Terror is an ideological conflict between modern secular liberal pluralism and an intolerant, politicised and out-dated interpretation of Islām, which has yet to undergo a systematic process of reformation like Christianity did in Europe during the 16th century.[5] This line of thinking perceives the current ‘struggle’ as a battle of hearts and minds, where military intervention can be ‘justified’ when necessary – whilst the more desired strategy is to support Muslim civil society groups, reformist movements, and secularists in the West and abroad.


Others have presented a more orientalist and Manichean reading of the current conflict – one between two Abrahamic faiths with expansionist ambitions: Western Christendom and the Islamic East, which have been at loggerheads since the dawn of Islām and its initial battles and conquests of Byzantium territories, right through to the Crusades and up to World War One with the subsequent abolishment of the Ottoman Empire.[6][7] This line of thinking perceives the War on Terror as a mere continuation of a civilisational conflict which has been ongoing for over a thousand years. This school of thought also favours military intervention abroad and draconian counter-terrorism laws at home to contain the threat of Islamism.


Both groups have numerous variations within the political spectrum between the left and the right – from neoliberalism and neo-conservatism to the far-left and the far-right. But whilst far-right populism is undeniably on the rise in the West due to various socio-political and economic factors,[8] it was neither the far-right nor the far-left that were responsible for the most recent conflicts which have destabilised the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan under the banner of the War on Terror.[9]


There is a third group, and it too has its own sub-groups. It comprises of those who, whilst believing in aspects of an ideological conflict with Islamism, accept to differing degrees that historical and contemporary injustices committed by Western powers in the Muslim majority world has significantly contributed to the problem of domestic terrorism.[10] The birth of ‘Islamism’ is understood by them as a post-colonial reactionary ideology that is culturally rooted in discourse not entirely alien to the Muslim world. Dubbed by their critics as “liberals”,[11] “Islamist apologists” and “regressive lefties” – what makes this strand of thinking unique is that it has never manifested into state policy.[12][13][14]


Whilst I do not entirely accept the ideological premises of the third group, I cannot deny the arguments that historical crimes and foreign policy injustices committed by Western powers in the Muslim majority world have been causative factors in politically motivated violence perpetrated by a handful of Muslims in mainland Europe and the United States since 2001.[15][16] It is also important to note that those who consistently cite historical and contemporary grievances do not necessarily enjoy the mainstream platforms, state funding or media limelight as compared to those who advocate an interventionist, draconian and reformist approach to tackling the “Islamist terror threat”.


Basic, but important definitions


Before I proceed with proposing a radical solution to significantly decrease the threat of “home-grown” terrorism, I must state that there are Muslim “equivalents” of the aforementioned schools of thought that exist all over the world and that they are not exclusive to non-Muslim academics, thinkers and political movements in the West.


Let us start by defining “Islamism”. While there are many frequently used definitions, the most popular is:



“A political interpretation of Islām which seeks to establish an autocratic government ruled by Sharīah law.”


What I understand “Islamism” to be when it is described by policymakers and the corporate media is:


“A Muslim who adheres to Islamic laws and values in their private and public life, as well as believing in the undisputed truth of Islām as the only salvation for humanity”.


Why do I believe this? Because a “Muslim” is the one who submits in totality to the will of God and “Islām” means to “submit” to God, and through this submission a Muslim attains peace (the “peace” is conditional to submission).


Lastly, what is “terrorism”? “The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”


Can this widely accepted definition of “terrorism” be applied to the actions carried out by modern nation states or liberal democracies? Of course, it can. However, is it applied by Western governments, the United Nations, the European Union, or NATO when referring to illegal wars,[17]complicity in war crimes,[18] genocide and human right abuses committed by the West and their allies?[19][20][21] Rarely, if ever. The term “terrorism” tends to be exclusively reserved for non-state actors or “rogue states” that Western governments bear grudges with.[22] Therefore, for the remainder of this article, the term “terrorism” will be equally applied to actions committed by western countries as well as non-state actors.


Leave the Muslim world alone


The following is my 10-point solution to significantly limiting the “Islamist terror threat” in the West. Taking into consideration that practically everything from de-radicalisation programmes,[23]funding Muslim reformers to endless domestic countering-violent extremism policies have been tried,[24][25] tested and arguably failed,[26] the only strategy that remains is to holistically review Western foreign policy in the Muslim majority world:


1. Bring back all Western soldiers including NATO and UN troops, as well as secret service personnel stationed in Muslim countries.[27]

2. Close down all military bases in Muslim countries whilst keeping Western embassies and diplomats there.[28]

3. Review the West’s unstinted relationship with Israel.[29][30]

4. Stop propping up despotic regimes that oppress, kill and imprison non-violent political and religious opposition groups.[31]

5. Stop invading and occupying Muslim countries and monopolising their natural resources.[32]

6. Stop meddling in the political affairs and “derailing democracy” in Muslim countries. If Muslims want to be ruled by Islamists and governed by Shariah law then so be it.[33]

7. Stop selling arms to regimes that go onto use these weapons against their own people or neighbouring countries, which further destabilises the region.[34] [35]

8. Stop criminalising non-violent Islamic movements and Muslim resistance groups under the disingenuous and irrational pretext of “combating terrorism”.[36][37]

9. Shutdown all secret torture camps and prisons in Muslim countries that are used for illegal rendition.[38]

10. Respect the land, air and maritime sovereignty of Muslim countries.[39]

I know what you’re thinking – the above is too far-fetched and outrageous to even dream of, let alone be uttered as a solution. Well of course it is! Because to implement my 10-point proposal ultimately means for Western governments to have a miraculous epiphany in minding their own business, and stop acting as modern day Romans.[40] As well as minding their own business, Western governments need to fundamentally abandon their neo-colonial mindset,[41] ideological arrogance,[42] and hegemonic approach to how they perceive and deal with the Muslim world.[43]


A case of survival and safeguarding


But this will never happen. Simply because there is too much at stake.[44] The geopolitical and economic implications of even remotely implementing half of what I have proposed is for Western governments, namely the US, Britain and France, to essentially allow other powers, be it Russia or China, or Muslim countries such as Pakistan or Turkey to undo the hard work of their colonial forefathers.[45] [46]


In addition to this, since the onset of the War on Terror, American and British military generals and security officials have consistently stated that countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Egypt, and now Syria, are important to contain, amongst other reasons, due to the “evil ideology” of Islamism, which seeks to resurrect a polity – the Caliphate – in an attempt to revive the medieval golden age of Islamic civilisation.[47][48][49][50]


Putting the barbaric and unIslamic practices of ISIS aside (who were born out of the US-led invasion of Iraq),[51] Western think-tanks have also stated that the likelihood of such a polity re-emerging from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire is not something that should be dismissed – especially given the Islamic world’s track record of leading humanity in the arts and sciences, as well as stretching its authority deep into Spain, the Balkans, the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe.[52]


With all these hypothetically undesirable scenarios troubling western policymakers, why would they be stupid enough to just pack up, leave and abandon their geopolitical safeguarding and survival measures?


Forgive me for presenting such a daunting reality that may read like a Manichean translation of Samuel Huntingdon’s ‘Clash of civilisations’,[53] but I genuinely believe there are undeniable truths to what I have stated.[54] Francis Fukuyama’s gross assumption that mankind had reached the “end of history” in the advent of Western liberal democracy, which apparently signalled the endpoint of human government, was simply a fallacy.[55] The secular nation-state and liberal democracy should not be blindly accepted as the eternal form of nationhood or government, especially as the former is barely two hundred years old! However, what should be acknowledged is the industrial scale death and destruction that has resulted from the birth of secular nation states – just the twentieth century alone has resulted in more than 87.5 million deaths according to former US national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezunski.[56][57]


And it is in light of this context and paradigm that we must try to understand where and how the West’s paranoia of Islamist inspired terrorism fits in. From trying to contain existing superpowers, to violently preventing the birth of an Islamist empire, tackling domestic terrorism is ultimately the circular game of how the West manages to stop the chickens from coming home to roost. And these chickens are not just motivated by War on Terror foreign policy grievances, they include historical grievances dating back to European colonialism and World War One,[58] with the unnatural borders of the Sykes-Picot Agreement still affecting the Middle East and North Africa today.[59] With the well-established and normative Islamic concept of “Ummah” (global community of Muslims bound together by Islām) it is impossible to deny that what I have discussed has affected the psyche of hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide.


To conclude, Western governments must look in the mirror and ask themselves the following questions which have glaringly obvious answers:


· * Did mass-scale Islamist inspired terrorism exist before 9/11 in the Western world? No.

· * Did poverty, high unemployment, “ghettoisation”, lack of integration, and racial and religious discrimination of Muslims exist in Europe before the War on terror? Yes.

· * Did these sociological and socioeconomic realities ever transpire into religiously or politically motivated violence before the War on Terror? No.[60]

· * Lastly, did Western powers begin their political and military interference in the Muslim majority world after 9/11? Of course not, it has been an on-going foreign policy for at least 150 years (in the case of Europe).[61][62][63]

Blaming the West and ignoring ideology


A legitimate counter-question would then be: what role does “Islamist”, “Salafist” or “jihadist” ideologies play in all of this? Surely, it cannot be entirely the West’s fault?


Ideology or theology does play a role – a very important one – but not a causative role which necessarily leads to violence.[64][65] Studies carried out by social scientists and the British secret services have found that the perpetrators of Islamist terrorism in the West are usually religious novices who justified violence through the language, culture or religion they felt most comfortable with.[66][67] In the same way Christian terrorists, Jewish extremists, Hindu fundamentalists, Irish Republicans, South American communists, and Kurdish separatists (PKK) all justify violence through the distorted language of their respective worldviews, the lone wolves and terror cells of ISIS are no different.


There is an argument that if Western powers militarily abandoned the Muslim world, nihilistic groups like ISIS would continue to attack mainland Europe. But there are two very simple points which would nullify this unsubstantiated assumption.


Firstly, ISIS was born out of the industrial scale death and destruction of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[68] Therefore, the desire to seek revenge would not immediately diminish, especially as the wounds of losing Mosul and being bombed in Raqqa by Western forces are still very fresh.


Secondly, the abandonment of Western military interference would have to be coupled with the abandonment of the West’s political interference in the Muslim world; which includes its support for Israel and other despotic dictators in the region, as well as selling weapons to these regimes – all of which has violent consequences that lead to grievances that are subsequently used to justify politically motivated crimes in the West.[69]


As for the wider issue of non-violent manifestations of “Islamism”, in more cases than not, they tend to be advocates of normative Islām who want to regain control of the Muslim world’s political destiny whilst safeguarding its Islamic identity from what they perceive to be a cultural invasion by the West.


As idealistic as the prospects of halting western interference and meddling in the Muslim majority world may seem due to the gravity of hegemonic geopolitics at stake, let us at least be honest enough to admit that the streets of North America and Europe were much safer from the threat of “Islamist terrorism” before the US-led War on Terror ensued. In the likely case that the status quo persists, let us at least reflect on the fact that, upon balance, our governments have made the conscious choice of maintaining unjust foreign policies at the calculated expense of our safety.


-------------------------------------

Notes:

[1] http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/606092/Islamist-Extremist-Islamic-State-ISIS-MI5-Britain-Andrew-Parker-Security-David-Cameron

[2] http://www.claystone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Claystone-rethinking-radicalisation.pdf

[3] http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs29.pdf

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/14/religion.july7

[5] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/not-war-terror-war-ideology

[6] https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/will-europe-finally-face-threat-islamism/

[7] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/23/mike-pompeo-religious-war/

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/europe/europe-far-right-political-parties-listy.html

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/george-w-bush-tony-blair-chilcot-report-iraq-war

[10] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-terrorism-uk-foreign-policy-manchester-terror-attack-tory-security-minister-ben-a7756861.html

[11] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-moksvold/the-lefts-problem-with-fr_b_8930598.html

[12] https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the-inner-workings-of-the-apologist-mindset/

[13] https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/tom-mills-narzanin-massoumi-david-miller-max-farrar/why-on-earth-would-leftists-go-out-of

[14] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-terrorism-uk-foreign-policy-manchester-terror-attack-tory-security-minister-ben-a7756861.html

[15] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html

[16] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/12/536870827/amnesty-says-u-s-led-coalition-may-have-committed-war-crimes-in-mosul

[17] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-john-prescott-says-tony-blair-led-uk-into-illegal-war-in-iraq-a7129106.html

[18] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/12/536870827/amnesty-says-u-s-led-coalition-may-have-committed-war-crimes-in-mosul

[19] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130

[20] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130

[21] https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

[22] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38868039

[23] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/20/almost-4000-people-were-referred-to-uk-deradicalisation-scheme-channel-last-year

[24] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/02/uk-government-covert-propaganda-stop-muslims-joining-isis

[25] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/05/politics-of-fear-britain-anti-extremism-prevent-government-radicalisation

[26] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/21/government-prevent-strategy-promoting-extremism-maina-kiai

[27] https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/

[28] http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/op-environment/middle-east/

[29] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2016-01-13/real-talk-israeli-settlements

[30] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/9645925/Britain-must-atone-for-its-sins-in-Palestine.html

[31] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-03-07/helping-hurts

[32] https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/

[33] https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/06/us-backed-coup-hijacks-egypts-revolution/

[34] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html

[35] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/saudi-arabia-admits-use-uk-made-cluster-bombs-yemen

[36] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/muslim-brotherhood-listing-as-terror-group-delayed/

[37] https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

[38] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/05/cia-rendition-countries-covert-support

[39] https://www.dawn.com/news/1029733

[40] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/01/donald-trump-has-fascinating-parallels-with-caligula-says-historian

[41] http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/19/08/2014/new-neo-colonialism-africa

[42] https://www.opendemocracy.net/north-africa-west-asia/tahir-zaman/political-islam-in-neoliberal-times

[43] http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

[44] http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

[45] http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/pentagon-plan-divide-and-rule-muslim-world-1690265165

[46] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-curse-of-sykes-picot-still-haunts-the-middle-east

[47] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWECbtxAHq8

[48] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/20/faces-2009-richard-dannatt-tory

[49] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/14/religion.july7

[50] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/20/faces-2009-richard-dannatt-tory

[51] https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/23/isis-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-us-led-war-on-iraq/

[52] http://www.futurebrief.com/project2020.pdf

[53] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1993-06-01/clash-civilizations

[54] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWECbtxAHq8

[55] https://ps321.community.uaf.edu/files/2012/10/Fukuyama-End-of-history-article.pdf

[56] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1993-06-01/out-control-global-turmoil-eve-21st-century

[57] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1993-06-01/out-control-global-turmoil-eve-21st-century

[58] http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/

[59] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-curse-of-sykes-picot-still-haunts-the-middle-east

[60] http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml

[61] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes

[62] https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/

[63] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes

[64] http://www.claystone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Claystone-rethinking-radicalisation.pdf

[65] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

[66] http://www.claystone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Claystone-rethinking-radicalisation.pdf

[67] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

[68] https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/23/isis-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-us-led-war-on-iraq/

[69] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html



_____________________________________________________


@TheLahoriGuy @Vapnope @Solomon2 @Zibago @Kaptaan @peacefan @Peaceful Civilian @ValerioAurelius @C130 @Vergennes @Penguin @The Sandman @SecularNationalist @waleed3601 @Louiq XIV

@T-123456 @SouI @Soumitra @Hell hound @Fenrir @livingdead @Jaanbaz

@Hamartia Antidote @haviZsultan @Sliver


I tagged mostly non-muslim westerners, secular liberal "muslims", and other anti-islam forumers who idolize the west and are the major proponent of western secular imperialism over the Muslim majority world. I believe most of these people believe in the current western "war on terror" narrative where Islam needs to be deformed to suit western liberal expectations and Islam is blamed for terrorism. Lets see what their views are on this very logical proposition for ending global terrorism. The author btw is a bonafide British Muslim journalist.

Too long an article. A summary will be nice

BTW if the summary is Islamists are playing the victim card then you already know my position
 
I COMPLETELY support the proposal of the author!

Muslim majority countries I believe should be governed by sharia laws 100%.

But that is not enough.

Muslims EVERYWHERE ON EARTH should be ruled by sharia. Even the muslims in tye west should be governed by sharia.

The west should open sharia courts everywhere so that muslims can be punished according to their beautiful religion.


I think only if muslims start living by sharia laws forcefully they will actually start leaving islam in masses.
 
There are many versions of Islam, many translations that differ from eachother in very fundamental ways, like how to treat other religions than Islam for instance.

There are also many ingredients that go into a Sharia set of laws, some are useful to all, some are oppressive towards some (or all) under it's rule.

But on the face of it, 9/11 did have a bunch of reactions from the west, which led again to reactions from muslims (ranging from peaceful to violent)..

I was asked to provide an opinion on this topic, so here it is:
The best way (for fundamentalist muslims who just want to preach their religion in their own way) to stop an invasion by another country is not to send more meaningless attacks their way. Meaningless on the military level of comparison i mean.
I can with reasoning that is destructive for the average fundamentalist-muslims' ego, prove that even before 9/11, conflict was sought out by muslims against the west (key phrase to search the history books is the 1970s oil-crisis, started by OPEC) which Muslims defend with anti-Israeli rethoric.
But even fundamentalist muslims' rethoric concerning the 1945-2017AD conflict between Muslims and Westerners, doesnt result in moral victory for Muslims.

to put it short : drop the violence from your side, and you prevent westerners from having any valid excuse to send violence your way, Muslims.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rene Veerman <rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:23 PM
Subject: sit-rep : idealogical ground held at defence.pk forums.. no need to spend the same amount of time spent earlier, again. :)
To: NOS <reacties@nos.nl>, CNN <worldnews@cnn.com>, CIA <info@cia.gov>, NSA <nsapao@nsa.gov>, info@whitehouse.gov, Mossad <info@gov.il>, info@groenlinks.nl, christenunie@tweedekamer.nl, sgp@tweedekamer.nl, info@vvd.nl, info@pvv.nl, info@50pluspartij.nl, info@sp.nl, info@pvda.nl, d66@tweedekamer.nl, Donna Marrozos <redactie@3fm.nl>, redactie@volkskrant.nl, redactie@telegraaf.nl, redactie@trouw.nl, buitenland@trouw.nl, opinie@trouwl.nl, binnenland@trouw.nl, info@nrc.nl, redactie@nrc.nl, info@parool.nl, redactie@parool.nl, "Team Nieuws.nl" <redactie@nieuws.nl>, redactie@ad.nl, gastbijdrage@sargasso.nl


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/preventing-terrorism-requires-radical-change.513553/#post-9791411
{COPY-AND-PASTE from email : not included}

was my reply to:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/preventing-terrorism-requires-radical-change.513553/
{COPY-AND-PASTE from email : not included}
 
bla bla blubb

Some excellent points that we also have in the program of Forza Italia.

But allow me please to also add our demands.

As we all know if you want something you must give something.

So let us bring up your points and i add our points.

1. Bring back all Western soldiers including NATO and UN troops, as well as secret service personnel stationed in Muslim countries.[27]

Perfect! No muslim shithole is worth the life of single western soldier. Of course this means also to end all military cooperations. No NATO membership for Turkey. No weapon deals. Turkey needs to leave Cyprus as well. We strongley demand that all weapon deals with nations like Saudi Arabia of the Emirates end.


2. Close down all military bases in Muslim countries whilst keeping Western embassies and diplomats there.[28]

Perfectly fine. But also end all funding of muslim countries to muslims in western nations. No mosque funding from abroad. No imported Imams. All Imams must be from western nations and the influence from muslim nations must be cut down to zero.


3. Review the West’s unstinted relationship with Israel.[29][30]

Thats ok as well. At the same time all muslim countries promise to hail their minorities. We want christian and jewish societies flourish in Saudi Arabia. There are millions of christians in Saudi Arabia, mostly from South East Asia. Saudi Arabia must build the first cathedral in Saudi Arabia. At same time we also want, that muslim countries make a proposal how exactly they plan to raise their christian and jewish population.


4. Stop propping up despotic regimes that oppress, kill and imprison non-violent political and religious opposition groups.[31]

Perfectly fine.

5. Stop invading and occupying Muslim countries and monopolising their natural resources.[32]

We go even further. We want deinvestment. This means that trade and economic transactions from teh west in muslim countries gets under strict surveillance. Its a fact that Katar and others use the investments for sponsoring terrorism


6. Stop meddling in the political affairs and “derailing democracy” in Muslim countries. If Muslims want to be ruled by Islamists and governed by Shariah law then so be it.[33]

Totally fine, as long they dont pose a threat. Any threat from any muslim countries must be answered with a devastating military strike.


7. Stop selling arms to regimes that go onto use these weapons against their own people or neighbouring countries, which further destabilises the region.[34] [35]

As i already said, we go even further. We want ban all weapon sales to any muslim country and also stop evry military cooperation.


8. Stop criminalising non-violent Islamic movements and Muslim resistance groups under the disingenuous and irrational pretext of “combating terrorism”.[36][37]

Also fine, we couldnt care less what groups there are. If they pose a threat for the west, theiy get eliminated.


9. Shutdown all secret torture camps and prisons in Muslim countries that are used for illegal rendition.[38]

Totally fine.


10. Respect the land, air and maritime sovereignty of Muslim countries.[39]

Bingo! I´m so glad you bring this up. Respect our land, air and maritime sovereighnity as well. This means evry muslim who travels the west has to follow our rules. Women dont cover their hair here. You dress western, you behave western. You speak our language. You dont like it? Then gtfo.

As you see it is very easy to find a solution for this conflict. :)
 
I dont think there is a tight knit group called 'islamic world' to begin with, we are divided based on nations and coutries influence each other all the time. 'The west' is another group (like the 'islamic world') that is blamed for many things, but it too have countries that keep their interest above the group.
Its perfectly ok for a western country like UK to engage inside an islamic country say KSA to further her interest, just like an islamic country KSA do the same in the west, say USA(lobby & influence the policies of the country).

If the general point is, terrorism is born out of political reality in many cases, I agree. Look at nortern ireland, the irish used to bomb the sh*t out of UK(that makes islamic terrorists look pretty tame), but after political settlement its all calm and peaceful(mostly)
I read somewhere that wars and conflicts are less one sided in this century, there will never be total victory(and the end of last century), which is good in the larger scheme of things. There is little chance of rerun of slavery or colonialism. And world is a more peaceful place.
 
I COMPLETELY support the proposal of the author!

Muslim majority countries I believe should be governed by sharia laws 100%.

But that is not enough.

Muslims EVERYWHERE ON EARTH should be ruled by sharia. Even the muslims in tye west should be governed by sharia.

The west should open sharia courts everywhere so that muslims can be punished according to their beautiful religion.


I think only if muslims start living by sharia laws forcefully they will actually start leaving islam in masses.

Plenty of Muslims want Sharia in their country though, plenty want Sharia in South and Southeast Asia but not for those in Europe and the ex-Soviet states. I do think though the Muslims in the west would definitely leave if they were to be ruled by sharia
 
Plenty of Muslims want Sharia in their country though, plenty want Sharia in South and Southeast Asia but not for those in Europe and the ex-Soviet states. I do think though the Muslims in the west would definitely leave if they were to be ruled by sharia
I have gotten to know a few saudi arabian women and they told me a lot. They are dying to find a way to migrate to Turkey and "be a free woman". They said they wanted to experience freedom. They said they dont want to be just slaves to their huabands.

Of course these are just the educated english speaking women. Uneducated women think the rest of the world is also like saudi arabia.

But saudi arabia and countries alike will not be able to keep their populations ignorant forever. Oil age is to come to an end. The only way to save themselves is to turn to value creation by human populations and that also includes women.

They will HAVE TO educate all their women and give their populations means to advance themselves, which also means INTERNET!

And with internet access they will realize that they are just living in a shithole and will want to leave their countries for even Turkey as the other saudi women I have seen.

This phenomenon is inevitable.

I have seen a documentary about Pakistan too very recently. The educated young want nothing to do with Islam. They just want to leave for the west and live a modern lifestyle.
 
Some excellent points that we also have in the program of Forza Italia.

But allow me please to also add our demands.

As we all know if you want something you must give something.

So let us bring up your points and i add our points.

1. Bring back all Western soldiers including NATO and UN troops, as well as secret service personnel stationed in Muslim countries.[27]

Perfect! No muslim shithole is worth the life of single western soldier. Of course this means also to end all military cooperations. No NATO membership for Turkey. No weapon deals. Turkey needs to leave Cyprus as well. We strongley demand that all weapon deals with nations like Saudi Arabia of the Emirates end.


2. Close down all military bases in Muslim countries whilst keeping Western embassies and diplomats there.[28]

Perfectly fine. But also end all funding of muslim countries to muslims in western nations. No mosque funding from abroad. No imported Imams. All Imams must be from western nations and the influence from muslim nations must be cut down to zero.


3. Review the West’s unstinted relationship with Israel.[29][30]

Thats ok as well. At the same time all muslim countries promise to hail their minorities. We want christian and jewish societies flourish in Saudi Arabia. There are millions of christians in Saudi Arabia, mostly from South East Asia. Saudi Arabia must build the first cathedral in Saudi Arabia. At same time we also want, that muslim countries make a proposal how exactly they plan to raise their christian and jewish population.


4. Stop propping up despotic regimes that oppress, kill and imprison non-violent political and religious opposition groups.[31]

Perfectly fine.

5. Stop invading and occupying Muslim countries and monopolising their natural resources.[32]

We go even further. We want deinvestment. This means that trade and economic transactions from teh west in muslim countries gets under strict surveillance. Its a fact that Katar and others use the investments for sponsoring terrorism


6. Stop meddling in the political affairs and “derailing democracy” in Muslim countries. If Muslims want to be ruled by Islamists and governed by Shariah law then so be it.[33]

Totally fine, as long they dont pose a threat. Any threat from any muslim countries must be answered with a devastating military strike.


7. Stop selling arms to regimes that go onto use these weapons against their own people or neighbouring countries, which further destabilises the region.[34] [35]

As i already said, we go even further. We want ban all weapon sales to any muslim country and also stop evry military cooperation.


8. Stop criminalising non-violent Islamic movements and Muslim resistance groups under the disingenuous and irrational pretext of “combating terrorism”.[36][37]

Also fine, we couldnt care less what groups there are. If they pose a threat for the west, theiy get eliminated.


9. Shutdown all secret torture camps and prisons in Muslim countries that are used for illegal rendition.[38]

Totally fine.


10. Respect the land, air and maritime sovereignty of Muslim countries.[39]

Bingo! I´m so glad you bring this up. Respect our land, air and maritime sovereighnity as well. This means evry muslim who travels the west has to follow our rules. Women dont cover their hair here. You dress western, you behave western. You speak our language. You dont like it? Then gtfo.

As you see it is very easy to find a solution for this conflict. :)

Just loved the way you put all the responses up straight.
 
I have gotten to know a few saudi arabian women and they told me a lot. They are dying to find a way to migrate to Turkey and "be a free woman". They said they wanted to experience freedom. They said they dont want to be just slaves to their huabands.

Of course these are just the educated english speaking women. Uneducated women think the rest of the world is also like saudi arabia.

But saudi arabia and countries alike will not be able to keep their populations ignorant forever. Oil age is to come to an end. The only way to save themselves is to turn to value creation by human populations and that also includes women.

They will HAVE TO educate all their women and give their populations means to advance themselves, which also means INTERNET!

And with internet access they will realize that they are just living in a shithole and will want to leave their countries for even Turkey as the other saudi women I have seen.

This phenomenon is inevitable.

I have seen a documentary about Pakistan too very recently. The educated young want nothing to do with Islam. They just want to leave for the west and live a modern lifestyle.


Yes and we can already see that. Most muslim countries depend completly on opression and bad education. But they cant hide anylonger.

if we look at Saudi Arabia we see more and more dissent. Women go out in short dress to provocate:

saudi-miniskirt.jpg


The future of the muslim world is female.

The muslims that come europe show exactly that. Most got raised like a small king but can do nothing. They are lazy and then fail. 90% are raised in a way that they can never achieve anything. They need to opress their women to keep that system running.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Back
Top Bottom