The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Sunday, 18 September 2011

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller rationalises Jihad

Former MI5 boss, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, has said that Britain’s involvement in the war in Iraq has galvanised support for al Qaeda among Muslims in the UK. She went on to say that Iraq has provided a battleground on which ‘jihad’ could be fought. She said that the Iraq War

‘increased the terrorist threat by convincing more people that Osama Bin Laden’s claim that Islam was under attack was correct.’

However, if the West were at war with Islam, why would it fight against the Taliban/al Qaeda in the Afghanistan mountains; but appease Muslims on the streets of London? Why would it ‘fight Islam’ in Iraq and yet allow Muslims against the Crusades (MAC) to burn the American flag - and wave the Islamic Black Flag of War - here at home?
If it were just a war against Islam, we could have won the war by now because our troops would just target all Muslims with massive air strikes and relentless carpet bombing. Instead, our forces go out their way not to kill or harm Muslim civilians. (This is also true, especially, of Israel, which could annihilate its enemies over night if it wanted to.)

What Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller must realise is that jihadists will always find some reasons - or excuses! - to do battle against and terrorise Western governments and peoples. If it weren’t Iraq it would be Afghanistan. If it weren’t Afghanistan, it would be Israel and Palestine. If it weren’t Israel and Palestine it would be Kashmir or even India itself.

Not just wars either. If it weren’t Kashmir it would be the banning of the burqa in Europe. If it weren’t the burqa ban it would be our not allowing Muslim districts to enforce their own law. If it weren’t sharia law it would be... Fill in the dots yourself.

So, yes, Manningham-Buller is in a sense correct. It is the case that ‘actions overseas have an impact at home’. But I would qualify that. It is the case that

Any action overseas, or in a Muslim state/area, could have an impact ‘at home’.

And if not abroad, domestic difficulties with Muslims at home would have impact, well, at home.

This is because Muslims require a reason - or excuse - for jihad in that somewhere in the Koran it sort of says that only defensive violence and killing are acceptable (as well as the opposite of this!). Problem is:

Any Western action can be seen as aggressive and any Muslim/Islamic action can be deemed ‘defensive’.

Muslims have always deemed themselves to be the victims of aggression. Islamic states even played that trump card when their massive Islamic empires were being created all over the place. In addition, every act of Islamic aggression has been given a rationale which has portrayed it as a truly defensive action. After all, the best form of defence is attack.

The other thing we must bear in mind here is that Muslims count any killings or murders carried out in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the ‘invasions’, as WESTERN-CAUSED deaths, even if in virtually all cases it has been a case of Muslims killing Muslims or Muslims terrorising fellow Muslims. This is what Hamas has done. Its various body-counts for the Intifada also included all the Muslims who were killed by their fellow Muslims. (In fact, more Palestinians have died as a result of the various intifadas than because of Israeli aggression.)
The News Link:

No comments:

Post a Comment