Terrorism? What Terrorism?
Leftist poster boy and university folk hero Al Gore, having misled filmgoers on climate change, also practices his wiles on the reading public. In his most recent book, The Assault on Reason, Gore claims that “terrorism relies on the stimulation of fear for political ends. Indeed its specific goal is to distort the political reality of a nation by creating fear in the general population that is hugely disproportionate to the actual danger that the terrorists are capable of posing.” Given his appeasing rhetoric in the face of Islamic terror, I sometimes think the former vice president’s name should be changed to al-Gore.
This is essentially the same argument developed in Ian Lustick’s Trapped in the War on Terror. Lustick, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, believes that the threat has been grossly exaggerated, that the fear factor has been exploited by business and government for profitable ends, that terrorism is mainly a European problem, and that 9/11 was a one-off attack, forgetting that it was owing to sheer dumb luck that 40,000-50,000 people did not perish in the inferno — and, indeed, only by grace of a miscue that the Madrid attack did not claim thousands of victims. Conveniently, he pays no heed to the many subsequent terrorist attempts, not only in the UK and Germany, but in Canada and the U.S. that have been foiled by alert surveillance. Canadian author Howard Rotberg has aptly countered Gore’s and Lustick’s trendy prattle in Second Generation Radical, where he writes that “the situation is not that the fear of terrorism is disproportionate to its danger, but that the danger is disproportionate to the fear. … ‘Fear’ is not the problem; the problem is delusional responses to that fear.”
A more recent example of the spurious argument involves former CIA case officer Marc Sageman, who, according to his bio, holds various positions at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Maryland. In a review of his Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century, Daniel Pipes has pointed out how easily numbers and statistics can be manipulated to support a partisan thesis. Sageman contends that America’s presumably softer, assimilationist approach to its Islamic community gives it an advantage over Europe’s alienating tendencies, thus reducing the threat of internal jihad. “The rate of arrests on terror charges per capita among Muslims is six times higher in Europe than in the United States,” Sageman claims, explaining that the difference lies “in the extent to which these respective Muslim communities are radicalized.”
However, the actual figures suggest the very reverse of his conclusions. To begin with, his numbers are completely skewed. He asserts that since 9/11 “there have been over 2,300 arrests connected to Islamist terrorism in Europe in contrast to about 60 in the United States.” But Europol’s official figures posit 1,400 European arrests and the U.S. Department of Justice shows 527, actually a low-ball figure. The misconception grows even more interesting when one considers relative percentages. Contrary to President Obama’s inflated census of Muslim Americans pitched in his Cairo speech, the Muslim population in the U.S. is only around 14% of Europe’s, which means that, proportionally speaking, the American arrest rate is between two and three times higher than that of Europe. Given that the U.S. has indeed made more strenuous efforts to assimilate its Muslim population, Pipes’ logical conclusion is the opposite of Sageman’s: integrating the Islamic community exacerbates rather than diminishes the likelihood of terror.
Another instance of this tendency to reduce the sense of the terrorist menace in the collective psyche is furnished by Douglas E. Streusand, a professor of Islamic studies at the American Military University, and Purdue University graduate Harry D. Tunnell IV. In “Choosing Words Carefully: Language to Help Fight Islamic Terrorism” (since posted on the Islamist CAIR website under the heading “Cultural Ignorance Leads to the Misuse of Islamic Terms”), the duo takes a slightly different tack. It is terminology that is at issue here. The essential argument is that the term “jihad” has been misunderstood and wrongly applied by the West, that our Islamic enemies are only a misguided offshoot of a noble spiritual struggle and should properly be called “mufsidim” (evil or corrupt persons, “spoilers”), separating them from mainstream Islam so that we do not offend our Muslim friends and allies. In this way our “experts” seek to soft-pedal the magnitude of the conflict in which we are engaged.
The authors of this piece of dysmorphic twaddle are clearly developing the thesis of Middle East studies pedagogue John Esposito, head of the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. Esposito is one of Islam’s chief apologists and a rainmaker for the terrorist cause, who asserts in The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? that jihad is “a spiritual experience only, not a menace,” discounts the “stereotypes of activists as fanatics” whom he claims “share a common call for the transformation of society” through an apparently justifiable “response to the present” — a most interesting formulation in the incendiary circumstances — and wishes to draw our attention away from the global conflict that threatens to engulf us toward those “many Islamic organizations [that] today espouse liberalization and democratization.” Esposito serves his paymasters well.
Who said, ”Ideas so stupid only an intellectual could believe.” ???
I think it was George Orwell.
Academics, self-declared ”experts”, ivory-tower day-dreamers, have ZERO common sense. Political correctness smothers intellectual honesty, rational analysis based on evidence goes out the window. Politicians & journalists contribute to the disconnect with reality.
Physical and catastrophic terrorism is still potentially there. But now it behaves like earthquakes do. There are thousands of minor movements, but the major occurrences are been foiled by better intelligence and preventive measures.
I get the feeling that the aggressive political motivations of the jihadists have been reduced by lack of peer support and less financing. The hate is still there but maybe it’s becoming more personal and less politically structured. A mapping of the occurrences in the last year will hopefully support this theory. Unfortunately, the past is not the future . . .
I would argue that the incidence of Islamic terrorism is directly proportional to the extent to which the Koran is accessed and accepted as the word of Allah. The command to engage in Jihad is found therein and anyone who claims it’s about personal morality rather than imposing the faith upon infidels is clueless or a lying liberal.
Islamic terrorists like bin Laden have told us what motivates them. I’ll take their word over the fatuous theories of fatheaded professors who have found refuge from the real world.
It’s not surprising that Islamic terrorism is proportionally less in Europe than in America. Obviously, if you can get Sharia concessions without overt acts of terrorism you will take that route.
Wherever Islam is in charge human rights are in danger. The examples of these clueless professors excusing the horrific reality of Islam illustrates the fact that in some people the threat of terror is all that is required to provoke submission.
I must congratulate Muhammed for being clever enough to dress up his totalitarian political movement as a religion. It has made it immune to criticism from simple minded liberals.
Why anyone gives a rat’s tail what an academic says about anything is a mystery. University tenure represents the most sophisticated and lucrative form of welfare. If one believes that, “Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach.” Then consder, “Those who can neither ‘do’ nor ‘teach’ become college professors.
Right Vivo. Wishful thinking and hope and change will keep you safe. After all, you don’t live in an earthquake zone, right? There’s an elephant in the room that many just do not want to acknowledge, let alone confront. Islam is and always has been the enemy of all that is not Islam. The ability to ignore the obvious is indeed astonishing. We should only be thankful that most people prefer to be secular and the majority of Muslims don’t take jihad that seriously.
95% of Americans have no clue about ISLAM and it’s genesis. Ignorance will be our downfall. Islam is a religion of the sword,and the first to go will be homosexuals and liberals when they (muslims) gain power. Good luck upper east side!
I agree entirely, Booker Gain. May I provide a horrible example? That would be the Rev. Jim Jones’s People’s Temple cult. Jones claimed to be (1) an atheist political philosopher and (1a) a Congregationalist minister; (2) black and (2a) a son of a father who belonged to the Ku Klux Klan; (3) a Communist and (3a) head of a private charity. He performed hoax miracles, even claiming to have raised people from the dead. His financial frauds were vast; his commune in Guyana was collecting $20,000 a month from the U.S. Social Security Administration, in the name of retired or disabled church members.
The people who helped him accomplish all this weren’t the illiterate ghetto dwellers who made up most of the church. They were intellectuals recruited from the colleges of California. The most prominent of them, Timothy Stoen, was just one year out of Stanford Law when he was plotting to murder religious columnist Lester Kinsolving for writing critically of Jones. They were proud of their opposition to what Jones called the racist, fascist United States. Just as you said of Mohammed, he dressed up his totalitarian political movement, complete with his own concentration camp, as a religion. And the simple minded liberals swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
@3. Booker T. Gain:
“…being clever enough to dress up his totalitarian political movement as a religion”
I agree, but you must then also give credit to Marx for dressing his crazy religion up as a political movement. I find the similarities amazing. Perhaps that is why Commies and Islam have gotten on so well over the years. Both Marx and Mo packaged their desire to rule as despots in a way that was palatable to the target audience. Too bad they didn’t get into marketing instead.
Our academic “elites” cannot see the threat for the same reason that they cannot see the political bias on their campuses. They think that their belief system is the only true way and are constantly reenforced in this thought by their peers. They will engage in endless rationalization to plaster over the facts, playing with numbers and words to draw a veil over their eyes, so as to avoid the reality that so avidly desires their destruction.
“Terrorism? What Terrorism?”
This happens to be an exact quote of W’s response to the CIA memo placed before him in Texas in Aug. ’01.
You could see this coming shortly after 9/11. The NY Times began running a number of articles about muslims in America and oh, the fright the delicate dears felt at a possible backlash from what just had to be bitter, ignorant, and violent Americans. Those cave men who lacked the sophistication of the Times and say, Maureen Dowd, and who might be disposed to vigilante violence.
From there is was a short step to where we are today, amply touched upon above.
The truly wise,[back to the NY Times] know who the real enemy is, the ones at home, whose party affiliation and/or political beliefs shall not blaspheme my lips.
For them the 1st Amendment is to be reviewed and perhaps massaged a bit, & not in their favor.
Enough, back to tolerating and understanding muslims, there being only so much tolerance to go around.
Bublio, 44, 4 real, are you actually quoting the evil Bush. What happened? Mao quotes suddenly out of fashion? At least, even if you are right and the context leads to your conclusion, the evil Bush changed his tune. Since this also happens to be Mr. Obama’s opinion, to the point that his admin won’t even call a … um … club a club but have come up with a stupid meaningless euphemism, what’s your point exactly. No, on second thought, don’t tell me. All you provide around here is background noise.
SAgeman, missed the fact of jihadism when he was deployed in Pakistan, two decades ago, hezoomed in on the original AQ cohort, but doesn’t include all the franchising efforts by Chechens, the GSFC, the various Lashkars, Uzbek
and other ethnic fronts
11. Thomas_L…..: “…Mr. Obama’s … admin won’t even call a … um … club a club….”
Ooooh, I get it! Funnneee! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge….
Dave, I think you’ve found your true audience.
#9 -
And how exactly, assuming your quote is true, does this excuse others from holding that same view after September ’01?
If you have a point, would you try to get to it?
#2 -
“Physical and catastrophic terrorism is still potentially there. But now it behaves like earthquakes do.” An unfortunate comparison, as minor movements do not rule out a catastrophic quake.
Cause now I’m a racist, right Booblio? You’d like us to think you’re a walking library but the stuff that feeds off of pond scum is brighter than you.
As long as the rudderless revisionists sneer at those who use, “Rami Ayyad” as a term to be put into a search engine, and they won’t do so; we will continue to see the willful blindness of those Accomplices to Evil.
9. biblio44:
biblio44 I cant find the quote you attribute to G. W. Bush.
But your great democrat Senator and President ‘hope to be’ John Kerry said:
Democrats consider them a ‘nuisance.’
Wonder how the family’s of those that have died/burned alive, decapitated,
feel about our resident Islamic nuisances?
algore is an expert at moving the goalposts. Fortunately for the rest of us, he has no defense and turns the ball over every other play on offense. So field goals and extra points don’t matter.
The fact is that even with a nuke the terrs are not a direct threat to destroy America. They can kill a lot of people, which is a drag, but in the long run not a national issue.
What the left has done is take that fact and stretch it into the non-fact that terrorists are harmless. They can be very harmful to citizens, even if they are not a threat to the nation.
Although if the Mad Dog Mullahs use a nuke on Moscow, the odds are that one of the Local Russian commanders would launch his nukes toward America once he realized why Moscow wasn’t answering the phone.
The last estimate I saw was that around 20% of the Soviet ICBM’s would actually make it to their target and explode. So while painful, that isn’t enough to be fatal to the nation.
Today’s news,
I believe John Kerry is from Massachusetts?
But nothing to see here-
/just move along,
they are nothing but a ‘Nuisance.’
Let me reiterate:
THE EUPHRATES RIVER IS DRYING UP.
There’s no ‘if’ the USA will be bombed, it’s a matter of when, where and how.
Blindness.
So much blindness.
I’ve found that many libertarians – Ron Paul types – often have the exact views as the left now.
“Oh, we caused 9/11 by being evil Jew supporting terrorists.”
“Islamic jihadists are freedom fighters who are reacting just as we would if Saudi Arabia had an Air Force base in America and if they meddled in our affairs.”
“I don’t care about the rights of muslim women. There’s some logic to their system and they choose to live that way.”
“Islamic jihadists targetting American civilians is no different than civilian casualties caused by U.S. air strikes.”
“Christianity and Judaism has just as many fanatics in it as islam does.”
“The patriot act is facist and needs to be ended without delay.”
“Islamic jihadists are no threat to the U.S. whatsoever. Our country is so big and they’re just a bunch of thugs.”
“We should go after using the police since they’re not a military threat. Or if we do use the military then it should be light like UAVs and NAVY SEALs.”
“9/11 was an inside job! It was an excuse for the Zionist neocons to invade the whole world and serve the bidding of Israel and violate the Constitution!”
“We can’t afford to syat in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should use the money here at home.”
“Bushy worshipper!”
Blah blah blah…
I hear that kind of crap all the time from the right and the left now. Gee, thanks Ron Paul. That’s quite the legacy you left on the American right. Now we’re all dangerously self-destructive moral relativists and conspiracy theorists.
The far right is becoming increasingly libertarian and so are right wingers in general. Being involved in two wars, being under constant threat of terrorist attacks, a failing economy and constant propaganda from both sides left and right who have similar idiotic views on islamofacism are a serious danger to Western Civilization.
I want to recommend that the Gitmo “detainees” that want to blow our freakin heads off…be sent to Massachusetts, to live next door the Kerry’s kids/ Or 1600 Penn ave…Obama’s kids could learn some new words.
Well, since they are not a “threat” it would be a cultural exchange type thing.
Holder and Gates are a disgrace to America, total socialists or worse.
#20.. Delia, INDEED YOU ARE RIGHT!!! the Euphrates is (being)drying up. It’s a real point of contention!!
The puzzle pieces are being put together one by one…Babylon, seven streams, Turkey’s project at Ataturk. I find it very interesting. Israel’s (temporary) defeat is yet to be seen
There’s terrorist in your back yard right now! OK, maybe not a terrorist, and maybe not right now, but it could happen. It could happen.
22. gracie,
As much as I think I’ve been preparing for the days to come, I know deep down I’m ill prepared.
I’m terrified.
In looking at the big picture, the percentage of islamists that hate us is huge. Is it as large as the population of the United States? If it is, we are still in deep dodo.
I’ll call a professor and have him call the police.
Having studied the Koran more than half a century past, having scanned it again while reading commentarists’ books, it’s as clear now as it was then.
The Koran is a civil code for warlordism than guarantees a favored few at the top with lots of women, and a massive reservoir of testosterone crazed young males soldiers at the bottom.
Throw in the deomographics (Mark Steyn’s “America Alone” is easy to read).
Yes, be afraid.
5. Thomas_L:
“Islam is and always has been the enemy of all that is not Islam.”
You need to read again what I wrote.
26. pelaut:
“a favored few at the top with lots of women, and a massive reservoir of testosterone crazed young males soldiers at the bottom.”
Sounds like the Project for the New American Century . . . or maybe The Crusades.
Vivo – Hate to break it to you ol’ buddy but I don’t read anything you write. I just catch it in my peripherals because I’m so much faster than you. Give it up! Here read mine again, however. The truth hurts.
“Islam is and always has been the enemy of all that is not Islam.”
This is the current official Department of Defense definition of terrorism: “TERRORISM — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
SOURCE: JP 1-02.
The Crusades? Please.
How about 300+ years of Islamic expansion by the sword? How about entire cites and tribes being slaughtered in the name of Allah? How about the modern day oppression non-Muslims in Muslim controlled nations?
Now and Then your ignorance is towering, in fact I’d say it competes with Obama’s ego.
95% of Americans have no clue about ISLAM and it’s genesis.
This.
If you asked most Americans about Mohammed, they would tell you “he was like Jesus for Muslims” if they even knew who the heck you were talking about at all. Their assumed idea of Mohammed is that he was like Jesus, Moses, or Siddhārtha Gautama when the reality is he was more like a Jim Jones or Charles Manson.
29. Thomas_L:
“Vivo – Hate to break it to you ol’ buddy but I don’t read anything you write. I just catch it in my peripherals because I’m so much faster than you.”
Uhhh?
The National Archives Building has a white chalk line drawn around the display of the Constitution; It appears to be a victim of a hit and run by the Obama administration.