Dec 27 2009

A History of Violence. But What’s the Motive?

In all the coverage of the averted terror incident aboard an airliner on Christmas day — and another incident today, one aspect of the story that’s missing is the motive.

Perhaps it’s a good thing reporters haven’t delved into that aspect of these attacks, given the mix of willful blindness and bias on the part of mainstream media. Certainly, we would be treated to a list of supposed Western insults and interventions targeting Muslims and Muslim countries. Someone would surely bring up the Mohammed cartoons. Our foreign policy, from Afghanistan to our support for Israel would come in for criticism as well. And we would be treated to another parade of political scientists and community activists claiming institutional Islamophobia.

The real reasons for these plots and attacks are much simpler, actually: Racism. Supremacist ideology. Xenophobia. Fanaticism. The ugly aspects of human nature allowed to run wild. If the attackers were members of the KKK, we would not bother looking too deeply into the “root causes” of their hatred, because we would know that these are simply red herrings. But when Al Queda and it’s allies target our airplanes, subways, hotels, churches and synagogues, media organizations like the CBC, BBC and CNN go into full-scale disinformation mode.

Some would see it as ironic that these psychopaths, in trying to blow up airlines carrying white Christian descendants of Crusaders, are just as likely to murder other Muslims, secular Caucasian fellow travelers, or cultural or racial minorities. But it’s not an error on the terrorists’ part.

The point is to shut down air travel, period. Disrupt cities. Create chaos and violence in once-peaceful communities. Brutalize populations.

Once civil society has broken down or withdrawn, the Islamists can seize power. We’ve seen this play out in Afghanistan, Somalia, Gaza, Lebanon parts of the Philipines, and elsewhere in the far corners of the world. We’ve also seen it to a lesser extent in British and French towns and suburbs.

That is their goal. They don’t want to just bring down a few airplanes. They want to bring down everything. And then be there to pick up the pieces.

I think this is something we all ought to be talking about. Some decent media coverage when these events occur would be a good start.

Recommended Reading
Take Off Your Underwear And Place It In The Tray, Sir
The West has work to do
Separating Explosives from the Detonator

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “A History of Violence. But What’s the Motive?”

  1. Chrison 27 Dec 2009 at 2:54 pm

    You will never get decent media coverage of these events in Canada for the simple fact that decent media does not exist in this country.

  2. truepeerson 27 Dec 2009 at 7:41 pm

    Exactly right Jonathan. There can be no serious analysis of these acts until we come to terms with their morality, which is not just a question of how many may die in one or another attack, but of how many will have die to achieve the jihadi “goal”, which is to bring the global economy and civil societies to collapse so that Sharia-enforcing gangs and “Caliphs” can, as you say, pick up the pieces. And among the billions who will have to die will be many Muslims because the kind of economy that can operate according to Sharia supremacism, where dhimmis just will not work as productively as free people (and don’t expect the Islamic warrior class to do much productive work), where all kinds of freedoms of exchange will have to be restrained, is surely something much less productive than we have today when we still worry about feeding projected future populations.

    I suppose part of the media’s problem is that it’s tough to see how people are killing, or trying to, for an almost “Utopian” ideal, i.e. to see that the Jihadis are not part of some national liberation movement in the familiar postcolonial vein, not agents on behalf of any existing state, or realistically-potential state, and not even on behalf of their clans or tibes, but that they are killers on behalf of an ideology that is so completely at odds with worldly realities as they exist today. If you really take the jihadis at their word you realize you can’t appease them, you can only fight them; and that is truly scary, or incomprehensible, to to those raised in a climate of cultural relativism and pacifism. It is a hard reality that our essentially Gnostic population – who believe in some special knowledge that will end war, if only the special elect of “good people” are given power – will for a while yet seek to deny in various ways. Keep hitting back.

  3. jnarveyon 28 Dec 2009 at 10:41 am

    I totally agree with you. Of course, the problem of perception is not confined to the media, because as you say it is difficult for even many well-educated people to comprehend.

    The Islamist strategy is unique even among such homicidal ideologies as communism and Nazism. Their utopian (well, dystopian) world views at least made room for technological progress and the presumed happiness of the survivors once all their class or race enemies were murdered.

    In contrast, both technology and joy are anathema to the Islamists’ agenda. It’s an inhuman ideology, in every sense of the word.

  4. Erika Rathjeon 30 Dec 2009 at 6:50 pm

    The al-Quaida in Yemen apparently said they will “slaughter” the Americans in revenge for the Americans killing civilians. I get that; they’re angry. They have every right to be. But unfortunately they’re extremists and decide eye-for-an-eye is the best way to react… and then the US reacts by clamping down security and decreasing even Canadians’ civil liberties. To this I ask: if your neighbour was threatening to shoot you and your family, would you put on a bulletproof vest and lock everyone indoors, or would you put on a bulletproof vest and try to talk it out? Admittedly the other party needs to be open to talking… but the American foreign policy seems to overlook the talking part on a regular basis. Didn’t Obama say something last year about starting with peaceful talks?

    I’m simplifying this a lot but I think we must urge our leaders to look at solving problems instead of just preventing what appears to be inevitable chaos. I’m sure they’re laughing at our civil liberties infringements right now.

  5. Erika Rathjeon 30 Dec 2009 at 6:52 pm

    Sorry, I meant Al-Qaeda.

  6. jnarveyon 30 Dec 2009 at 10:16 pm

    Hey Erika,

    Not sure if you’re reading the same reports I am, but what I’ve seen so far is that Al Queda is claiming this is retaliation for US attacks on their group — not civilians (unless one accepts the view that even those who are armed to the teeth, trained in killing techniques and united in a formal organizational structure are to be considered civilians for lack of a uniform).

    The way I see it, American military forces have aligned themselves with the sovereign government of Yemen to eliminate a den of psychotic terrorists that appear to represent no one except other psycho extremists. That Al Queda claims their next moves are “retaliation” are moot — they’re not supposed to be plotting attacks on anyone in the first place. These people don’t need to be negotiated with; they need to be put in the ground as fast as possible.

    If my neighbor threatened to shoot me and my family, that would be enough proof to me that I was dealing with a dangerous maniac.

    So, yes, assuming there were no cops around to deal with this psycho (which is a pretty unreal assumption, but again, this is all hypothetical), I absolutely would keep my family and friends indoors, away from harm. Next, given the opportunity, I would kill this idiot before he had a chance to do any harm to me or those I love.

    Again, it’s a very unreal sort of scenario (where exactly did the cops go?), but it is absolutely applicable to the fight against terrorists. Those few countries that can prevent attacks on their nationals beyond their own borders will take every opportunity to do so, and this means shooting bad guys.

    As a wise friend of mine once said in reference to Al Queda’s buddies in the Taliban, these people don’t want to talk with you. They want to kill you. The sooner we understand this, the quicker we’ll be able to deal with them.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply