Sunday, September 19, 2010

Root Cause: America Fights Back

The Guardian has a long and not very coherent article about Faisal Shazad and how he came to be a (failed) terrorist. The cause? America is killing Muslims.

Of course, other people are killing Muslims too, included mostly other Muslims, but also - at least quite recently - Russians, Serbs, Indians, Chinese and so on. Unlike America, moreover, some of them have been at it for rather a while, and even at times were the aggressors. Not that you'd learn any of this from the Guardian.

Shahzad's reasoning, shared by suicide bombers in Gaza, Sri Lanka and elsewhere, was that his act was a war tactic. Aerial bombing by states cannot avoid killing children. Hence terror bombings by militants that kill children are a logical response. The anti-terror police have a programme (so far successful) to prevent another 9/11, but it cannot address root causes – American foreign policy...

Nothing new here, move on...


NormanF said...

The root cause of course is the West's insistence on being free. They will stop killing you when you surrender to them.

Now that's logical for all of Islam's fanaticism.

I wonder how much people really understand it.

Barry Meislin said...

It's paranoia pure and simple.

On a massive, massive scale.

Along with the insane projection that accompanies it.

In a nutshell:
If I attack you, threaten you with violence and destruction, abuse you, and tell the most egregious lies about you; and you fight back and somehow prevent me from destroying you, then you are the aggressor.

And the fact that I cannot destroy you is proof of your intention to destroy me, of your nefarious nature, of your aggressiveness, of your racism, of your sheer evil.

And the Left has bought into it.

Anonymous said...

another Root Cause
a pity the rest is sub only - it is nothing new of course, nevertheless listed like that it has its "charms" and then, if one thinks one step further it all boils down to "outposts" - as if those bullets in Sarajevo were the CAUSE of WW1.


Why Palestine won’t remake the Middle East.
Josef Joffe
September 20, 2010 | 12:00 am
The most durable myth in the Middle East is: “It’s Palestine, stupid.” It lies at the heart of Barack Obama’s Middle East diplomacy, which is why the president has been pummeling the Israelis and pushing the Palestinians to resume talks. According to this myth, the most urgent problem is not the Iranian bomb or Syrian ambitions. It is not Egypt, once an anchor of stability and now slipping into precarious irrelevance. It is not Iraq, which is tottering between occupation and anarchy. It is not Al Qaeda in Yemen, the return of the Taliban, or the ticking time bomb that is Pakistan. Nor is it despotism, illiteracy, and misery, or the oppression of women, sects, and creeds.

No, the problem is three slivers of land known as Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, and this on a geostrategic stage that extends from Ankara to Afghanistan. Defuse that issue, and everything will fall into place. A paradigmatic example of this thinking came in a CNN interview with Jordan’s King Abdullah earlier this year. For him, “all the conflicts lead to Jerusalem.” Iran’s bomb project? Never mind, for “if we solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem, why would Iranians want to spend so much money on a military program? It makes no sense.”

AKUS said...

Islamic insanity seems to know no limits:

"There is also anger over the planned ban on wearing the burqa in public places, the presence of French troops in Afghanistan, and a French commando attack on an al-Qaida base in Mali in July, which led to the death of seven members of the organisation's north African branch."

So - to teach the French a lesson, a woman wants to wear a bomb under her burka and blow herself up - which is why France bans the burka in the first place!!

Then, to show that France should not concern itself with al Quida, they will launch a terrorist attack to show that they should be concerned about al Quida.

AKUS said...

BTW - Bill Maher refered to him as "Fizzle Shahid".

A brief nickname that probably has more truth to it than the entire Guardian article.

AKUS said...

Look at the end of the article:

Some attacks don't need the authorities to prevent them, however. Shahzad was as sub-par a soldier as he was a financial analyst. In court he told Judge Cedarbaum that he still didn't know why his triple-redundant bomb failed to ignite sometime after 6.30 on a Saturday night.

"The timer on the detonator, it was on military time," a police source later told me. "He set it for 7.00. That was 7am on this thing. For 7pm, what he wanted, it should have been 19.00."


There was a similar case in Israel a few years ago where the terrorists mixed up DST with regular time.