Dementia wrote:

Yes, it could be stopped. First, we have to look at the root cause for this mayhem. We have to accept the fact that a group of people with a high level of education, coordination and sophistication, scattered around all over the world, cannot become crazy and willing to commit heinous crime simultaneously without any reason.

Obviously written by a non-native English speaker, look past the missing pronouns and definite articles. While I doubt any of these things will happen with the current political climate, I think he's right in thinking his course of action would minimize Islamic terrorism.

If the central deceit of western conservative thought is the idea that we can do no wrong, the central deceit of western liberal thought is the idea that foreign oppressed masses share our perspective on what is wrong.

This article offers up three views that, while popular and indeed trumpetted by BL, are intentionally oversimplified, disingenuous, and unfair.

1. The radical left view that the U.S. is aligned with the perspective of the radical right in Israel; which equates support for Israel's basic existence with support for wiping the Palestinians from the face of the earth.

2. The criticism of autocratic rulers in the middle east (which is a politically correct way of saying "we would prefer theocratic ones like the Taliban" because that is the alternative).

3. The criticism of US military presense in the middle east. (Rather circular logic here. We're declaring war on you because your security forces are present? Like saying "I broke into the house because the cops came" or the more popular "she hit me first mom.")

The fact is that the general conflict between western and islamic thought is centuries old and relates to a combination of european imperialist tendencies and the fact that islamic fundamentalism is a violent philosophy. Al'Q in the middle east has grown out of unrest and instability in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Eastern Europe and North Africa during the 80's. Irrespective of the causes of those various conflicts (certainly a combination of the USSR and the USA fighting with eachother, the mismanagement of various European colonialst adventures, and the aformentioned long term Christian/Islamic history) the fact is that this movement is more a product of war itself then of policy or of poverty. These conflicts didn't have to do with these people so much as the land they were living on, and they got wrapped up in them as a consequence. These are people who've known only war and can only imagine war because they grew up with war. This isn't a response to policies so much as a relization of their identity. They are identity Muslim and they wish to see the rise of the caliphate. They seek glory and martyrdom. It attracts people who are more interested in living interesting lives then living long ones.

If the US stops supporting Israel, Israel will be destroyed (which this author actually seems to suggest, depending on how you define "occupation".) If the US opposes autocratic regimes in places like Saudi Arabia they are likely to be replaced with Iranian style Islamic regimes who will further aid the jihadi movement. If the US withdraws all of its security forces from the middle east Iraq will collapse into a throbing torrent of violence like ants after you kick their hill. If you think its bad now you haven't seen anything. And what will emerge from that is a twisted and evil Jihadist military junta.

None of this would temper BL's ambitions. None of it would convince an Afghan fighter to set aside his dreams of glory, nor would it reduce the attractiveness of the movement to European youths. Granted, I think Iraq has been a recruiting aid for Al'Q. The jury is still out on whether a "democratic iraq" is going to have a bigger psycological impact on this movement than an "iraq war" has. Only time will tell. But the answers are certainly not as simple as this author suggests.

RE: And Now Bombings in London: Can Islamic Terrorism be Stopped? (by Falsafay Ghaalib) - Media Monitors Network (MMN)