Immigration Policy Not Foreign Policy Is The Real Reason For Terror Attacks
Submitted by Henry Armitage
There is a mendacious line of argument prevalent on the left that seeks to let Islam off the hook when Muslims commit acts of terror in the West. Jeremy Corbyn’s post-Manchester campaign speech is representative of this, the shriveled old pencil-necked lefty promoting the idea that Western foreign policy in the Middle East is the real reason why so many underage British girls today are in the morgue or in intensive care with items of hardware embedded in their flesh. (Why he didn’t explicitly extend his explanation to cover the girls in sexual servitude to Paki rape gangs is a mystery…)
Besides promising more hospital beds for terror victims and more police to harass people for singing politically incorrect songs, he promised to “change what we do abroad,” essentially claiming that the problem is not Muslims (of whom it appears the attacker was “no more representative than the murderer of Jo Cox was of the rest of us”) but UK foreign policy.
Clearly, there is some superficial truth to this line, making it a useful fallback for the reality-embattled left. However, it is actually a stupid cop-out that needs to be deconstructed.
Note: In what follows I will be using the term “ISIS” broadly to cover all the various mad-as-a-cut-snake jumpin’ jihadi groups causing chaos in the Middle East as an arm of US-Israeli-Globalist foreign policy. K?
ISIS and the Globalists Are on the Same Team
In the first place, it is now common knowledge among people who breathe through their nose that the US and its allies are actually supporting ISIS as a matter of policy. I mean, come on. We now have the likes of Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times berating Trump in print for (allegedly) fighting ISIS—and this on April 12, in the week after he was induced to break with his campaign policy and actually bombed the Syrian military base over what was probably an ISIS chemical attack against a number of beautiful babies.
Note also that Friedman does not ask “Why are WE fighting ISIS in Syria,” but “Why is TRUMP fighting ISIS in Syria? A tacit acknowledgment that it was not the previous Government’s policy to do so.
And have people already forgotten the Wikileaks emails in which Clinton and Podesta corresponded over how the Saudis and Qatar are supporting ISIS? Or the Goldman Sachs Transcripts that similarly revealed Clinton’s knowledge of intra-Islamic arms supply channels, while Secretary of State? Effectively, she was confessing to aiding and abetting as an “ally” a country that through its terror network was killing US citizens.
It never made a lick of sense to try to resolve a “civil” conflict by fighting against both sides, as the Obama White House and the whole, worldwide globalist cabal has professed to do for the past six years—but, post-Wikileaks, that contention became a bold-faced lie.
Much has rightly been made of the fact that on the one occasion when ISIS forces attacked Israel (by accident), they actually apologised afterward. Ditto the Israeli policy of treating wounded ISIS fighters before blithely sending them “back to the border.” Of course, if ISIS is cozy with Israel, that automatically makes them cozy with the US and her Western allies, too. Such is the way things work in the Pax Americana.
And remember when a congressional hearing back in 2015 was told that literally no more than “four or five” “moderate rebels” trained by the US at a cost of $500 million had not yet defected to ISIS? Likewise, the UK Government has so far spent almost 2.5 billion supporting ISIS in Syria alone. That should have bought Ariana’s fans a little protection, no?
Given that ISIS and related groups have objectively been the beneficiaries of the roughly 5 trillion that the US has now spent on Middle Eastern intervention, perhaps we could extrapolate that the terrorists could hardly wish for better allies than the “crusaders” whose children they are nonetheless intent on blowing to pieces?
Arabs may be dumb, but they are not that dumb—especially the ones agentic enough to manufacture home-made explosives and\or travel the world to join this or that paramilitary organization. They are simply pressing their advantage, knowing that their place, like that of their regional patrons within the global power structure, is currently unassailable. This enables them to go on the offensive and terrorize ordinary Western sheeple who have no idea what is going on, putting in practice the time-honoured, violently expansionist plan that was clearly set out by Mohamed himself. How else are they going to get their worldwide Caliphate? Have a debate with Richard Dawkins?
Given all this, contrary to what Corbyn et al say, there is actually some reason to suspect that if support were withdrawn from Arab terrorists abroad, Jihadi attacks would actually intensify in the West in protest and as disgruntled, US, British and Australian-born ISIS volunteers come home to roost.
Christian Middle Easterners Don’t Do Terrorism
Perhaps the most pusillanimous refrain that is heard after each new Enriching incident is that we must be extra nice to Muslims to prevent them from radicalizing and blowing us up to assuage their tender feelings. This is why we are told a Muslim ban “would not make us safer.” Somehow, though, the much smaller number of Christian refugees from the Middle East are not treated with such sensitivity.
In the US, Trump’s plan to prioritize persecuted minority Christians as refugees over Muslims was predictably attacked, despite the fact that in 2016 only 1% of refugees accepted from Syria were Christian (where Christians are 11.2% and especially targeted by ISIS groups). Imposition of the Jizya, sex slavery, beheadings, crucifixions…These are some of the things that Christians suffer in ISIS-controlled territories. And typically expatriates express their chagrin at US foreign policy by holding peaceful protest rallies and verbally ambushing the likes of Senator McCain at public events, as seen here:
Yes, as a direct result of US and allied activity in the Middle East, Christians in several countries are being widely persecuted by radical Islamists. Surely they have more reason than their persecutors to feel resentment against the West? The same anti-Christian discrimination occurs in the UK, too. Why aren’t Christians from all over the world volunteering to fight for the Assad Government in Syria, shouting “Kyrie Eleison!” and hitting the nail bomb detonator?
If it were true that “terrorism has no religion,” or whatever, we would expect the hard-done-by Christians whose lands are being overrun by ISIS to be the ones attacking us at home—that is, if we let them in in sufficient numbers for the comparison to be possible. The US takes only 1% of Christians from Syria, as noted above, but the same Pew Research paper also notes that Christian refugees still outnumber Muslim in the US. Similarly, there is no shortage of non-white Christians, Hindus and Sikhs, etc. in the UK and elsewhere throughout Europe.
Now, I am not saying that importing Christian blacks and browns is good policy, only that the violence they do against us is usually not religiously motivated and hence tends to be less spectacular and filed under something other than “terrorism” before being forgotten.
It might also be noted that many born-again Mujaheddin these days lack a Muslim family background. They might be White, like this guy, or victims of their parents’ race mixing, like this guy. Now the question is, if Islam itself has nothing to do with inspiring terrorism, why are unhinged people like this so disproportionately drawn to it?
And of course, my argument wouldn’t be complete without a link to a counter-Jihad site listing the numerous Koranic verses that make it clear “jihad” doesn’t mean having a chat about God over tea and scones.
Muslims are the biggest Victims of Terrorism!
Finally, the left likes to tell us how good we have it in the West. We experience only a small fragment of the world’s share of murderous Muslim attacks, so what are we worried about?
Suck it up, Kaffir!
Obviously, it’s incumbent on us to fully join the Muslim world via continued mass immigration so that we can experience our fair share of this vibrancy. But seriously, does it not occur to these apologists that they are engaged in self-contradiction? If Muslims are the biggest victims then clearly terrorists are not motivated primarily by a sense of injustice committed against them by Westerners.
Sure, partisan warfare is one thing, but this is not 2004 and the attacks we are talking about are not against members of the Iraqi Parliament. But what did these 29 Egyptian Copts do to deserve their fate? Or these 48 Iraqi marketgoers? Maybe they were selling pork products…?
We are going to be hearing more of this excuse from the left and from Muslims themselves in the future as these attacks continue to escalate and #NotAllMuslims becomes increasingly risble. Since we on the real right have no sympathy for Judeo-interventionism, it is tempting to concede the point and then proceed to argue that, well, Muslims don’t actually contribute anything good, so there’s no reason to have them here even if they aren’t all born baby killers…Or we simply allude to the long history of conflict between Christendom and the Dar al-Islam. The latter point should be emphasised as well, but it is not the only reason why people espousing the nonsense refuted here should be pilloried until they learn to think before opening their mouths.