Article

2014-09-08 Arabia

Western pols and media linked Islam to 9/11, driving Muslims to become terrorists

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-09-08 01:26|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 'It would surely be helpful if you people would stop distracting everyone by bringing up easily observed facts.'
Post-modernist political correctness is, at root, a war against noticing things.

Posted by ed in texas 2014-09-08 07:42|| 2014-09-08 07:42|| Front Page Top

#2 linking Islam to the events of Sept. 11, 2001 by some Western politicians and media was unfair and obviously aimed at projecting Muslims as terrorists and extremists.

So, all of a sudden the Islamics have become the victims in 911? Go commit some unnatural or unspeakable act on yourselves.

Posted by JohnQC 2014-09-08 08:46|| 2014-09-08 08:46|| Front Page Top

#3 When non-Muslims nuke the ummah till they glow, it will be because the ummah have systematically mistreated non-Muslims.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2014-09-08 10:07|| 2014-09-08 10:07|| Front Page Top

#4 One step away from the "Its Bush's fault" excuse.

Posted by 49 Pan 2014-09-08 10:42|| 2014-09-08 10:42|| Front Page Top

#5 Ya know, 49 Pan, despite having voted for him twice it this IS in some ways Bush's fault.

He was oh so sympathetic to the RoP and it was all about a war on terror NOT a war on Islam or Muslims. This PC don't blame the "victim" even if the "victims" were the aggressors was what GW kept pushing. Don't forget to go shopping.

Posted by AlanC 2014-09-08 12:20|| 2014-09-08 12:20|| Front Page Top

#6 Our nation as a whole cant seem to get its heard around the very simple fact that this is a religious war, for them at least. I don't really lay the blame on Bush. We knew it was coming early during the Clinton years. He missed Bin Laden twice when he had the chance. He knew what was going on in the Sudan and Mogadishu, he sent one or two cruise missiles and then allowed Oct 3rd to happen.

But then on a Friday the 13th a few hundred years ago the Catholic church decided PC was more important than ridding the world of the Islamic vermin.

Posted by 49 Pan 2014-09-08 13:10|| 2014-09-08 13:10|| Front Page Top

#7 He was oh so sympathetic to the RoP and it was all about a war on terror NOT a war on Islam or Muslims.

Do a little history-hunting, say ethnic Germans in the US in WWI or ethnic Japanese in the US in WWII.

Then come back and justify your position.

Posted by Pappy 2014-09-08 13:17|| 2014-09-08 13:17|| Front Page Top

#8 #3 When non-Muslims nuke the ummah till they glow

In self-lighting Mecca, the Moors
May scream the Koran out of doors
On a drear, moonless night
By the eerie green light
As they flee from the wee mutant boars.

Posted by Zenobia Floger6220 2014-09-08 13:32|| 2014-09-08 13:32|| Front Page Top

#9 Before 9/11 Muslims were sweethearts?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2014-09-08 13:38|| 2014-09-08 13:38|| Front Page Top

#10 Muslims of course could of helped solve this perception by turning in the bad Muslims instead of cheering in the streets and funding them through faux charities.

Posted by Airandee 2014-09-08 13:57|| 2014-09-08 13:57|| Front Page Top

#11 Pappy, ethnic Germans circa WWI? You mean like my Grandparents?

You can only make exceptions if you can define the general case. For WWI & WWII Germans were the general case from which one defined my parents and grand-parents, and others, as exceptions.

Today Muslims are the general case. Terror is a tactic not a foe. Bush needed to state the general case and then allow for exceptions.If you want to make exceptions, define the criteria. My grand-parents had a liberty garden and made Liberty Cabbage. They also imported/bred Alsatians rather than German Shepards (a distinction without a difference). They sent their sons off to war in WWII.

What behaviors can help discriminate the actively evil Muslims and the cheer leaders and silent supporters from the Muslims that don't agree that all infidels should bow to the dominion of Islam?

As best I can tell there's nothing in the Koran that allows for such a thing if you are a "true" Muslim.

Posted by AlanC 2014-09-08 14:21|| 2014-09-08 14:21|| Front Page Top

#12 I believe Bush was trying to divide and conquer because nobody believed the entire Muslim world was as bad as we now know they are. They follow the strong horse and we have shown to be a confused weak horse the last few years.

Having siad that I always though Osama Bin Laden's taking credit for the attacks on behalf of Islma had a bit to do with linking Islam to 9/11. I mean Palestinians were passing out candy long before any western pols and media said jack.

Posted by rjschwarz 2014-09-08 14:51|| 2014-09-08 14:51|| Front Page Top

#13 Actually Michelle Malkin's book "In Defense of Internment" laid out the rationale behind the decision to intern the Japanese.

I think they went a bit too far back then but then there was panic in the streets - particularly along the west coast.

Did it help defer attacks. Possibly. I think it's much like the 'Y2K' crisis. People cite that nothing happened in 2000 and Y2K was overblown. But did nothing happen because there was no crisis or because the problem sucessfully averted?

Still - Sending an entire ethinc group to camps was going too far.

Posted by CrazyFool 2014-09-08 15:01|| 2014-09-08 15:01|| Front Page Top

#14 Zenobia strikes again. Bravo!

Posted by Steve White 2014-09-08 15:51|| 2014-09-08 15:51|| Front Page Top

#15 Radical Islam was going to spread regardless of whatever Clinton or Bush did. You can't kill an ideology with tactical decisions. Radical Islam grew when we largely ignored it and it grew when we tried to combat it. (Naturally, I read Rantburg because I believe combating it will work a lot better than the ostrich approach; it's just that combating it won't look like it's working in the short run, either.) There are too many factors aiding the rise of radical Islam to mention them all, but prominent is oil money funding madrasses after the oil price booms of the 70s and early 80s, demographics (too many unemployed young males), and general anti-West sentiment cultivated by Marxists, nationalists, and religious zealots alike. It's not Clinton's fault because this global phenomenon would have still happened without Bin Laden or 9/11. It's not Bush's fault because revolution was bound to break out in various Middle Eastern countries (over 100,000 had already dies in Algeria's previous encounter with fundamentalism). Hopefully, it will burn out as most revolutions do eventually. But think of how many died in Europe during the 30 Years War between Catholic and Protestant armies. This is going to get uglier before it gets better.

Posted by Odysseus 2014-09-08 17:27|| 2014-09-08 17:27|| Front Page Top

#16 Well said Ody. With regard to the Japanese internment issue. I'm a bit reluctant to second guess wartime decisions made by our parents and grandparents. As I recall, collectively, those decisions resulted in victory in a fraction of the time we've been wrestling with the current threat.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-09-08 17:32|| 2014-09-08 17:32|| Front Page Top

#17 Thanks, Besoeker. I definitely think the Japanese internment decision was wrong, though I agree with you in general about usually not second-guessing prior decisions made under great stress. One thing that bothers me about current discussions in the US on this subject is that (in school course and museum exhibits) the action is presented in a vacuum with no mention at all of how the Japanese treated non-Japanese during the war. Their atrocities make our actions seem quite modest by comparison.

Posted by Odysseus 2014-09-08 17:39|| 2014-09-08 17:39|| Front Page Top

#18 I'm a bit reluctant to second guess wartime decisions made by our parents and grandparents.

Sooooo... does that mean we won't be hearing about Boer War history, or "Perfidious Albion" any more?

In all seriousness, I agree with Odysseus. It will get uglier, because American history proves the "necessary option" will not take place until every other option has been used.

Posted by Pappy 2014-09-08 18:23|| 2014-09-08 18:23|| Front Page Top

#19 That's true Ody. Even back in the 60's and 70's I never heard about the rape an Nanking or the sack of Manila, the 'comfort women', and the rest from public school.

But I've heard plenty about how evil we were to drop the bomb and intern the Japanese.

Never mentioned was the killing fields of Cambodia. But plenty of coverage of what we did in Vietnam.

Lets also not forget that often 'Islam' is treated as a race and not a religion and any criticism or negative comments about Islam is labeled as RACIST! (It is not a race - it is a choice).

The only real coverage of Vietnam was by my Computer Science Teacher, Mr. Pietras, who, during one class hour, showed slides taken from his service over there and gave a little narrative. To me it was way different than what I've seen on TV and the news. I still remember that.

Posted by CrazyFool 2014-09-08 18:33|| 2014-09-08 18:33|| Front Page Top

#20 Planning to attack + destroy the WTC even as it was being contructed, then doing it on 9-11 + killing 3000 people, as opposed to just halting construction + financing, etc. kinda sorta whoa throws a big monkeywrench into Mainstream + Govt. perceptions.

Big, big monkeywrench ...

Have I said "Big"???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2014-09-08 20:12|| 2014-09-08 20:12|| Front Page Top

23:57 Skidmark
23:44 rammer
23:11 Ebbomosh Hupemp2664
23:03 JosephMendiola
22:55 JosephMendiola
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:42 Ebbomosh Hupemp2664
22:11 Frank G
22:03 Frank G
21:58 Frank G
21:45 Pappy
21:44 Zenobia Floger6220
21:27 Shipman
21:26 Shipman
21:15 Shipman
21:11 Shipman
21:07 Shipman
21:06 Shipman
21:04 Shipman
21:03 Shipman
20:59 Shipman
20:58 Sonny Glarong6820
20:57 TopRev
20:56 Shipman