Thread: West's Islamophobia only helping Isis

An examination of the effect of the 'War on Terror' and how it has not only resoundingly failed but actually contributed to increasing terrorism.

Pretty interesting I thought:

Arun Kundnani: West's Islamophobia only helping Isis

By Arun Kundnani comment

11:44 AM Thursday Mar 24, 2016


Family and friends mourn during the funeral of Simha Damarib 60, one of three Israelis killed in a suicide bomb attack in Istanbul, Turkey, in Dimona, southern Israel on Tuesday. Photo / AP

The promise of the "global war on terror" was that "it was better to fight them there than here". That promise brought mass violence to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, Yemen and Somalia - in the name of peace in the West.

That formula has clearly failed. Tuesday's bombings in Brussels come on the heels of similar incidents in Grand-Bassam, Ivory Coast; Maiduguri, Nigeria; Istanbul; Beirut; Paris; and Bamako, Mali, all in the last six months. Rather than containing violence, the war on terror turned the whole world into a battlefield.

We should not be surprised. Violence inflicted abroad always comes home in some form. Last year, the US military dropped 22,110 bombs on Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon says these bombs "likely" killed only six civilians, along with "at least" 25,000 Isis (Islamic State) fighters. The true number of civilian deaths, though, is likely to be in the thousands as well.

Indeed, we know that the war on terror kills more civilians than terrorism does. But we tolerate this because it is "their" civilians being killed in places we imagine to be too far away to matter. There is no social media hashtag to commemorate these deaths; no news channel tells their stories.

Because we pay little attention to the effects of our violence in the places we bomb, it appears that terrorism comes out of the blue. When it does happen, then, the only way we can make sense of it is by laying the blame on Islamic culture.

When opinion polls find that most Muslims think Westerners are selfish, immoral and violent, we have no idea of the real causes. And so we assume such opinions must be an expression of their culture rather than our politics.

US Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have exploited these reactions with their appeals to Islamophobia. But most liberals also assume that religious extremism is the root cause of terrorism. US President Barack Obama, for example, has spoken of "a violent, radical, fanatical, nihilistic interpretation of Islam by a faction - a tiny faction - within the Muslim community that is our enemy, and that has to be defeated".

Based on this assumption, think-tanks, intelligence agencies and academic departments linked to the national security apparatus have spent millions of dollars since 9/11 conducting research on radicalisation. They hoped to find a correlation between having extremist religious ideas, however defined, and involvement in terrorism.

In fact, no such correlation exists, as empirical evidence demonstrates - witness the European Isis volunteers who arrive in Syria with copies of Islam for Dummies or the alleged leader of the November 2015 Paris attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who was reported to have drunk whisky and smoked cannabis. But this has not stopped national security agencies, such as the FBI, from using radicalisation models that assume devout religious beliefs are an indicator of potential terrorism.

The process of radicalisation is easily understood if we imagine how we would respond to a foreign government dropping 22,000 bombs on us. Large numbers of patriots would be volunteering to fight the perpetrators. And nationalist and religious ideologies would compete with each other to lead that movement and give its adherents a sense of purpose.

Similarly, Isis does not primarily recruit through theological arguments but through a militarised identity politics. It says there is a global war between the West and Islam, a heroic struggle, with truth and justice on one side and lies, depravity and corruption on the other. It shows images of innocents victimised and battles gloriously waged. In other words, it recruits in the same way that any other armed group recruits, including the US military.

That means that when we also deploy our own militarised identity politics to narrate our response to terrorism, we inadvertently reinforce Isis' message to its potential recruits. When British Prime Minister David Cameron talks about a "generational struggle" between Western values and Islamic extremism, he is assisting the militants' own propaganda. When French President François Hollande talks of "a war which will be pitiless," he is doing the same.

What is distinctive about Isis' message is that it also offers a utopian and apocalyptic vision of an alternative society in the making. The reality of that alternative is, of course, oppression of women, enslavement of minorities and hatred of freedom.

But the message works, to some extent, because it claims to be an answer to real problems of poverty, authoritarian regimes and Western aggression. Significantly, it thrives in environments where other radical alternatives to a discredited status quo have been suppressed by government repression. What's corrupting Isis' volunteers is not ideology but by the end of ideology: They have grown up in an era with no alternatives to capitalist globalisation. The organisation has gained support, in part, because the Arab revolutions of 2011 were defeated, in many cases by regimes allied with and funded by the US.

"The lesson of Isis is that war creates terrorism"

After 14 years of the "war on terror," we are no closer to achieving peace. The fault does not lie with any one administration but with the assumption that war can defeat terrorism. The lesson of Isis is that war creates terrorism.

After all, the organisation was born in the chaos and carnage that followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Russia and Iran have also played their role, propping up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime - responsible for far more civilian deaths than Isis - and prolonging the war in Syria that enables the militant group to thrive.

Meanwhile, the alliances that we consider crucial to the war on terror have worked in Isis' favour. The group's sectarianism and funding have come from the Saudi and Gulf ruling elites, the West's closest regional allies after Israel. And the groups that have been most effective in fighting Isis - the Kurdish militia - are designated as terrorists by Western governments because they are considered threats to our ally Turkey.

The incoherence of our response to Isis stems from our Islamophobia. Because we believe religious extremism is the underlying problem, we prop up Arab dictatorships that we think can help us contain this danger. Paradoxically, we support the very regimes that have enabled Isis' rise, such as the Saudis, the most reactionary influence in the region.

With our airstrikes, we continue the cycle of violence and reinforce the militants' narrative of a war by the West against Islam. Then, to top it all off, we turn away the refugees, whom we should be empowering to help transform the region. If we want to avoid another 14 years of failure, we need to try something else - and first, we need to radically rethink what we've been doing.

Kundnani is the author of The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror.

- Washington Post

It's also a juxtaposition of some of the comments that you see from Keyboard Warriors advocating for genocide, rounding up and mass interment of Muslims, masturbatory fantasies about pseudo-race wars being fought in the streets and what-not.

It occurs to me that those types fail to see that not only do they feed into and perpetuate the circle of hate but that also idealistically speaking they are not that far removed from the Islamic extremists that they rant about.

In an ideal world they and Isis & Co. should fock off to some deserted island somewhere and have at each other and leave the rest of us in peace.


Arun Kundnani: West's Islamophobia only helping Isis - World - NZ Herald News

There is no such things as "Islamaphobia."

It does not exist.

It's not in the DSM book and it's never been diagnosed


This term was created by Islamic advocacy groups in the west.

Black Heart ================================================> the point.


you missed it again.

Originally Posted by kingwilly

you missed it again.

Spectacularly.

Muslims are the new enemy. After Glasnost / Perestroika ended the Cold War in '88, our shepherds were frantically trying to find new wolves for the sheep to be terrified of, and thus herded as per their whims.
Cue Islam and it's extreme branch of radicalized medieval doctrines. The US has led it's allies into clusterfukc operations (illegal wars / invasion of sovereign countries) and mad foreign policies in the ME and beyond. People fleeing the resulting carnage have been allowed to seek asylum in EU countries regardless of any mandate from the host population's citizens.
Politicians (as in the UK) saw mass immigration as a great way to reduce labour costs and conditions, drive house and property prices up, deliver large blocs of votes, and give the resident population a boogeyman / hate / blame figure. The resulting "multi-culti" debacle (without any mandate to allow it), across most of W. Europe is a testament to their cowardice.
Radical Islam generally is an affront to Western beliefs, democracy, women's rights, secular government and free speech. Ticking every box for the big crackdown.

^Yup. All stems from basically the same belief system, updated or not from the same period in our history.

Originally Posted by kmart

After Glasnost / Perestroika ended the Cold War in '88

Since you mention it, I remember being equal parts scared and fascinated with 'The Reds' when I was a young child.

Terrified with the possibility of a world-ending war and fascinated by this country somewhere living under a system of government that I could barely comprehend, and apparently not allowed to listen to music or wear Levi's jeans and stuff.

Of course it was all mostly bullshit.

Also right now I've got the line from that Sting song stuck in my head: "I hope the Russians love their children too".

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Black Heart ================================================> the point.


you missed it again.

KW,

We both know that you and I see things differently on this topic.

You are a former convert to Islam, and then you left Islam and you are now an apostate.

You know what the sentence for apostacy is.

Originally Posted by Black Heart

There is no such things as "Islamaphobia."

It does not exist.

It's not in the DSM book and it's never been diagnosed


This term was created by Islamic advocacy groups in the west.

Agreed.

It's not islamophobia that drives non-muslims to criticize Islam, it's a pure disgust at pre-medieval Muslim beliefs and practices which attempt to intimidate and take over other people's lives.

Anti-Islamism is a more appropriate term, because we're not scared of them so much as we are thoroughly pissed off with their supremacist bullshit and cruelty masquerading as a peaceful religion when in fact the meaning of Muslmi or Islam is to submit,...not to be at peace, as the bobo apologists and their Islamofascist lovers claim.

^ Agreed too, there's no such thing as Islamaphobia, anyone stupid enough to practice such a nonsensical religion deserves to be looked down upon.

The only time it's funny is when those who are stupid enough to believe in Christianity condemn those whom are stupid enough to believe in Islam.

Originally Posted by Black Heart

There is no such things as "Islamaphobia."

Originally Posted by ENT

Agreed.

Originally Posted by BobR

Agreed too, there's no such thing as Islamaphobia

Well props for the manful efforts to redefine it but you chaps will have to take your issue with that point up with academia etc., pretty much all of which disagrees with you.

Besides, whatever you want to call it or define it as it's not really the point of the article is it.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Black Heart

There is no such things as "Islamaphobia."

Originally Posted by ENT

Agreed.

Originally Posted by BobR

Agreed too, there's no such thing as Islamaphobia

Well props for the manful efforts to redefine it but you chaps will have to take your issue with that point up with academia etc., pretty much all of which disagrees with you.

Ant,

Show us these papers from "academia."

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Ant,

Show us these papers from "academia."

"Besides, whatever you want to call it or define it as it's not really the point of the article is it."

If you want to go fishing for that red-herring then be my guest, Barbara.

You're the one that claimed there's no such thing on the entirely spurious reasoning that it's not in the DSM.

Your argument, you back it up. I'm not going to go off and do your research for you - least of all at your behest.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Well props for the manful efforts to redefine it but you chaps will have to take your issue with that point up with academia etc., pretty much all of which disagrees with you.

Any time anyone in "academia" says or does anything that runs contrary to political correctness they get fired. We even have a thread of that exact subject. Liberalism really is social fascism.

https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...ican-mind.html (PC Madness at Unis: Coddling of the American mind)

There are approx 1 1/2 Billion believers of Islam in the world...supposedly 1,500,000,000 followers (in round figures).

If only 1/10 of 1% do not want to share the earth with you, do not want to tolerate your existence and want to eradicate you possibly for not being an avid believer in the Koran and Mohammed , then you only have to wonder about 1 1/2 Million potentially violent fundamentalists.

Hmm...so what is the problem ?

A very good article, indeed...Trouble is, there is no solution offered...And mincing words will not help a thing...

Our world leaders are truly fcked up people...

It's hard to maintain the stance that the average person just wants to live in peace, no matter the race or religion...

^^Well that completely irrelevant tangent escalated quickly!

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Ant,

Show us these papers from "academia."

Ant

If you want to go fishing for that red-herring then be my guest, Barbara.

And your quote......

Ant:

take your issue with that point up with academia etc., pretty much all of which disagrees with you.

I'm waiting for these papers from academia, Ant.

Every time a muslim dies on home soil, it creates a vacuum to be filled with more radical hatred.
Extrapolate that into the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by the west and it is easy to see the results on a global basis.
Just carry on pouring more gasoline on the fire and watch it spread.

Originally Posted by Black Heart

I'm waiting for these papers from academia, Ant.

Well good luck with that then.

I'm not playing your silly little disingenuous game, Barbara.

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

"What's really hurting me, the name Islam is involved, and Muslim is involved and causing trouble and starting hate and violence. ... Islam is not a killer religion. ... Islam means peace, I couldn't just sit home and watch people label Muslims as the reason for this problem."

I wonder who wrote this?

I think some ignorant lying western politician or bureaucrat.


Muslim clerics and imams have repeatedly stated that islam is not a religion of peace.

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

"What's really hurting me, the name Islam is involved, and Muslim is involved and causing trouble and starting hate and violence. ... Islam is not a killer religion. ... Islam means peace, I couldn't just sit home and watch people label Muslims as the reason for this problem."

I wonder who wrote this?

I think some ignorant lying western politician or bureaucrat.


Muslim clerics and imams have repeatedly stated that islam is not a religion of peace.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

In an ideal world they and Isis & Co. should fock off to some deserted island somewhere and have at each other and leave the rest of us in peace.

There is no such thing as an ideal world. But for the sake of your stupid comment lets pretend that there is at least a small part in this world where muslims get along with others. Can you please give me an example ?


Now who do we have to deport ?