 |
| (Photo: AFP/Getty Images) |
A few simple, but very appropriate, remarks by Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School:
The White House and diplomats may wish to believe a distasteful, provocative, and inflammatory film motivated the violence in both Egypt and Libya. It is comforting for politicians and officials to ascribe the root cause of Islamist terrorism to grievance because if grievance motivates terror, then resolving the grievance could provide the solution.
Islamist terrorism, however, has far less to do with material grievance than ideology. [...]
Read the rest, it’s worth it.
Considering that this shabby, 'anti-Islam' film was made more than a year ago, it can only be a pretext. And considering that the murder of Christopher Stevens and the sacking of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was 'programmed' for the 11th September, one would have to be extremely naive to believe that it was a spontaneous reaction against a lousy film. Obviously it was a carefully planned attack against a vulnerable target, and the film was a good pretext to rouse the mobs and create instability.
ReplyDeleteAl Qaida has already shown it's callous disrespect towards its own religion by attacking and destroying sacred mosques, especially when they are full of worshippers, as if murder itself isn't already a crime against Islam.
There seems to be a tendency in Europe and America to underestimate the International objective of Islamic extremists which naturally include the Taliban. It's incredible that there are still many who like to believe that they represent 'the staunch defenders of Afghanistan who reject the presence of International troops on their sacred soil'. On the contrary, the Taliban are the international invaders.
When Massoud was fighting them, he knew it was useless trying to interrogate Taliban prisoners. With glazed eyes they would only mumble text from the Koran. But he noted that they consisted of Europeans, Chinese, Saudi Arabians, Palestinians, Yemenites, Pakistanis, Lebanese, Egyptians, etc., and relatively few Afghans.
During his visit to Europe in April, 2001, Massoud stressed his conviction that the war in Afghanistan was international, and not a national conflict. He warned the West that if they didn't move they too risked to become victim of terrorism. He had high hopes that he would gain the support of France, then under Chirac. But Europe turned a deaf ear to the Commander, ex minister of Afghan Defence. Massoud was assassinated the 9th September, 2001, two days before the twin towers were destroyed.
Even today, Europe and the USA persuade themselves that the war in Afghanistan (epicentre of the international war against terrorism) is 'over'. This would virtually mean that the Taliban have won, certainly in Afghanistan. What would stop them retaking Kabul, then invading Pakistan where obviously they already have considerable support and strategically placed infiltrators?
Then with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal...
truely said and I believe no voilence can be justified only looking at the problem with rightful perspective can solve the problem.
ReplyDeletewww.duringmytimes.com
Great post plus followup by Mirino. In addition to all that, the lies and incompetence of Obama. He had intell 48 hours before the attack, and ignored an update 90 minutes before the attack; he went to bed instead or monitoring the situation or sending in any Special Forces to protect the embassies; left them unprotected and unarmed. Shameful.
ReplyDelete