Opinion: The Counter-terrorist Corrida Opposing the West and Islam

Donate

Opinion: The Counter-terrorist Corrida Opposing the West and Islam

Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at his blog

In many of my past articles I have tried to show that the terrorists which have committed the recent atrocities in the USA, Europe and elsewhere were not really motivated by Islamic values at all and that the rulers of the AngloZionist Empire are trying to create a “clash of civilizations” narrative in which the western world and the Islamic world are on a collision course. They way they do that is simple: they identify psychologically weak individuals, the types that religious sects always prey on, and they then provide them with a thin layer of pseudo-Islam to rationalize their alienation and give them an ideological pretext to strike out and murder members of the society they hate so much. My evidence is simple: if you look at what we find out about the perpetrators you will see that they are typically sexually promiscuous, often homosexuals, that they drink, use prostitutes and engage in many types of activities which are categorically forbidden in Islam. Furthermore, in most cases the perpetrators do not have even an intermediate level Islamic education and their newly-found “Islamism” is either gathered on the social media or the result of maybe one trip to a Muslim country. Simply put these so-called “Islamic terrorists” are not so much Muslims, as they are your common, garden variety type of maladapted losers, frustrated unhappy types with a weak psyche and a desire for revenge.

Each time I wrote this I was accused of “whitewashing Islam” or of denying the obvious: that Islam is aggressive and a threat to the western world. The first accusation is a rather crude ad hominem used to avoid discussing the issue and reduce it all to my putative sympathies for Islam. And since ad hominems cannot be logically challenged, I will focus instead on the second accusation: that Islam is a threat to the western world.

Let’s begin with some basics first. “Islam” is an extremely diverse religion which over the centuries has been adopted in countries ranging from Morocco to Indonesia. To speak of “Islam” without adding some kind of narrowing qualifier to that word is simply nonsensical. Just as it would be ridiculously unfair to lump Orthodox Christians with the Papist Crusaders (if only because the former were also victims of the latter), it is ridiculously unfair to lump the Takfiri crazies of Daesh or al-Qaeda with, say, the Shia if only because in this case the latter were victims of the fomer).

Furthermore, the kind of militant Islam which we are dealing with today is a very unique and distinct variant of Islam. Since I am not a Muslim myself I may well be wrong in my conclusions (Muslim readers: please correct me if needed!), but as far as I can tell the kind of militant Islam which inspires al-Qaeda, Daesh and the rest of the Takfiri crazies has its roots in the ideology of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud who together laid the foundation of the Saudi state. And while this ideology, Wahabism, does borrow elements from the teachings of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, it was, at least initially, limited to the various tribes living on the Arabian Peninsula and had very little impact on the rest of the Muslim world. In other words, Wahabism was a local phenomenon limited to Arabian Peninsula at least until the Americans decided to unleash it against the Soviets in Afghanistan (more about that later).

The second type of Islam which has inspired various terrorist organizations in northern Africa and the Middle-East is based on the ideas of Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian author whose ideas have had a major impact on the Muslim Brotherhood which nowadays plays an important role in many countries such as Egypt, Turkey and many others. Some have tried to link what I would call “Qutbism”to the 9th centuryKharijites, but this seems far fetched to me: Qutbism is a very modern ideology developed in reaction to the modern, secular, state.

There are some major differences between Wahabism and Qutbism (such as the former being profoundly reactionary and the latter much more progressive), but the key feature they have in common is that they are both profoundly revolutionary. This is one of the things which is most often overlooked: the revolutionary zeal of Wahabism and Qutbism is primarily directed at existing Muslim countries and societies, not at the rest of the world.

I would argue that just like the Ebola virus which has existed for a long time in the dark bat caves of Kenya, the Wahabi virus remind confined to the deserts of the KSA until some particularly demented minds in the USA (lead by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a bona fide maniac) decided to unleash the Wahabi virus against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

What the CIA did was this: it 1) federated various extremist Muslims groups into one movement 2) it used Saudi money and propaganda to organize them and 3) it gave them weapons. Lots of weapons.

[Sidebar: The official narrative is that the plan worked and that the CIA booted out the Soviets from Afghanistan. Personally, I don’t buy this at all. Not only were Reagan’s “freedom fighters” unable to beat the Soviet army, it took them four long years to finally oust Mohammad Najibullah (1992) even though the Soviets withdrawal (1988) had left him completely alone. As for the Taliban, they only seized Kabul in 1996. No, what forced Gorbachev to order a withdrawal of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan was the total chaos inside the Soviet Union, not the military prowess of the Afghans. But since the CIA wanted to credit for “winning”, this is how the West decided to remember that event]

What is certain, however, is that the war in Afghanistan really did federate, for the first time, many varieties of Muslim extremists who convinced themselves that they had defeated the “Russian bear” and who then decided to take on both the established regimes of the Muslim world (whether Baathist or Shia) and the western infidels. The problem, however, was the the western infidels were far away and had plenty of military power at their disposal to deal with the Takfiris. So the Takfiris decided to fight only the weak:

1) The Russians in Chechnia during the Eltsin years (with the covert support of the Anglo-Zionists and most of the Muslim world)

2) The Serbs in Bosnia (with the full military support of NATO and the entire Muslim world)

Notice that when Putin came to power the Wahabis were defeated in Chechnia and that in Bosnia (and later Kosovo) the Wahabis were unable to defeat the Serbs and had to rely on the massive military intervention by NATO. In fact, it soon became apparent that the Takfiris could only achieve successes when backed by direct US/NATO power (Libya, Syria). The closest thing to a military success these Takfiris ever had was in Iraq where they could capitalize on the sectarian conflict resulting from the ousting of Saddam Hussein. As for Syria, Daesh has had the full support of the USA, the EU, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and all their proxies.

Why is all this important?

For two reasons: first, we have to realize that the threat we are dealing with is not “Islam” per se, but only a small subsection of the Islamic world. Second, this subsection primarily preys on the rest of the Islamic world, especially when it is already weakened by western military intervention.

Understanding a threat does not mean minimizing it. The Wahabi threat is real and it is growing with each passing year because the West still wants to use it against those states who refuse to be subjugated by the AngloZionist Empire. Even worse, the rulers of the Empire are now using the Wahabi crazies to create a crisis in their own homelands which they see as a means to preserve the current political order. In other words, the real problem are not the Wahabis, but the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire who are using these Wahabis inside and outside the Empire. What makes that threat even more dangerous is that Wahabism is now eroding traditional Islam in many parts of the world. In fact, most Muslim countries are now facing a revolutionary Wahabi threat, courtesy of the Saudis, of course, but also of their AngloZionist patrons who take absolutely no effective action to combat terrorism, who only pay lip-service to the need to not condemn all of Islam, but whose propaganda machine constantly hammers in the message that Islam, all of it, is a threat to the western world and democracy.

By refusing to discriminate between the Takfiris and the rest of the Muslim world, the Empire is constantly provoking the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide even though the vast majority of these Muslims are not only not liked to any form of Wahabism, but they are also the main victim of Wahabi atrocities and terrorist attacks. The various forms of traditional Islam worldwide are now under a double threat: on one hand from the Wahabi crazies and their Saudi patrons and, on the other, from the cultural/ideological war the West is now waging against Islam as a religion and as a civilizational model.

The distressing thing is that Wahabism can only be defeated by exactly the opposite approach: a full-spectrum state effort to eradicate Takfiri terrorists and a strong effort to foster, and even protect, the non-Wahabi forms of traditional Islam. This is exactly what Putin and Kadyrov did in Chechnia and this is what Assad is now trying to do in Syria. But this strategy implies a fundamental shift in thinking, at least for the Wests, as it is centered on two things which the West is categorically refusing to do:

1) To kill as many Takfiri terrorists as possible (rather than try to use them against perceived enemies)

2) To accept that traditional Islam is the single most important defense against the Takfirism

The war in Chechnia has shown that Russian can kill a lot of Wahabis. But only Muslims can kill the Wahabi ideology.

None of the above requires any endorsement of, or sympathy for, Islam. I submit that straightforward pragmatic logic clearly indicates that the worst possible way to struggle against Wahabism is to proclaim that Islam as a whole is the problem. In reality, the deadly Wahabi ‘virus’ has infected the ‘body’ of Islam and is now growing inside it. If this process continues, the traditional Islamic ‘body’ will simply die and be replaced by a Wahabi pandemic which will be much, much more dangerous for the entire planet. Because, make no mistake here, Wahabism is a mortal threat to everybody, Muslim or not, and it is a force which cannot be negotiated with. When Hezbollah’s Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, refers to the Wahabi crazies as “shaitans” (demons) he quite literally correct. When the “moderate” terrorists execute 12 year old children and use chemical weapons against civilians it becomes quite literally impossible to imagine what the “hardliners” could be capable of.

The West stands at a crossroads: it can either wage a “clash of civilizations” kind of war against the entire Muslim world and lose that war, or it can finally come to its senses and realize that the only thing standing between it and the Takfiris is the traditional Islamic world. Either way, Russia will fare much better, not only because her security services and special forces now have a total of 35+ years worth of experience dealing with the Takfiri crazies, but also because she can count on her Muslim population to be at the forefront of the defense of the Russian state and of true Islam. In contrast, the AngloZionist West has managed to alienate most Muslims and can only count on its Israeli patrons for help (with friends like these who needs enemies anyway?).

I suppose that the hardcore Islam haters will call me or sorts of names and accuse me, once again, of being a Muslim propagandist. Fine. To them I can only “enjoy your losing war against an entire religion!”. To those still capable of thinking straight I suggest the obvious: the bull in a corrida dies because he wastes his strength and energy trying to fight a piece of red cloth instead of goring the torero holding it.

You are the bull. The red cloth is the AngloZionist’s depiction of Islam. The matador is the AngloZionist Empire. Your move.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Loveyou

    As long as you deny that it has nothing to do with ISLAM you will continue to reap the reward of what you sow. Allah and his messanger does not support freedom of speech and liberty , Allah and his messanger believes in Sharia LAW, killing apostate, homosexuals, degrading women of giving them the animals right. Since you cannot see that have another 1500 years of ISLAMIC history Allah Akber

  • – TheFinn –

    Sorry, dead wrong. Some people have studied this for most of their lives and are not muslims and they likewise disagree. You just cannot make sense of history if you consider Islam does not legitimize violence.

    How often these awful lies of “very unique and distinct versions of Islam” are repeated is sickening. If it’s so unique and distinct, why is it there are now ISIS cells in indonesia, malaysia and phillipines who all believe the same thing as those in syria?

    Here take it from a lifelong scholar on the subject. He starts talking about 3/4 of the way through.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUahplFevTw

  • Wandering_Spirit

    Flawed analysis missing a core basic tenet of Islam that is the fact that regardless of the stream the ultimate goal is to convert the world. Also the myth of moderation is a figment of Western narrative. There is but one Islam in general. Within it different streams fighting for supremacy. But if ironically tomorrow the whole world was under Sharia most of those streams would find themselves at ease with the idea. Yes, millions of non practising Muslims (murtaddin or takfir by definition) would find the idea appalling. Yet they would conform. There are solutions to the problem but none of those passes through the current narrative of Multiculturalism. It is not working. Rather than an Huntington’s clash of civilization, a recovery of Western civilizational values is required and measures designed to keep certain cultures out, in their own dimensions. Free to develop their own outlook but far away from western shores. Any other solution will bring to civil war in the long term.

  • so was it just an anomalous strain of Islam that waged war on Christian Europe for centuries, and who threw us out of the Levant and North Africa? ‘

  • There is no history of peace with Islam in the West.The Muslims have to go or Europe will be turned into a califate.The war is inevitable.We wont be replaced by muslims.We wont hand over our countries to muslims.Saker is underestimating the danger.He is naive.There will be a war regardless of what i think or what he thinks or does.The war is on.They have to go.

  • hvaiallverden

    Yea, I give you an ex. since the rest bases their acusations on strawmens and ad-himeniems aka the standard bollocs and they use what I have defined for years, the Cut and Paist narratives, and as You say, you cant argue with stupid, ignorant shitheads.

    So, to my ex. and this is also common when some fringes attac Christianity, they use the same methodic, aka cut and paist.
    Islam and slavery, how this is been raped and missued to conduct hate against Muslims.

    What they do is simple, from an atricle/chapter in the Quran, where Muhammad debates slavery and when you infact have an legitim cause of taking another man as an slave.
    They then leaves out the rest, just cuts out where they explisitly says that, but the entrie Chapter is about WAR.
    When anyone attacs you and your home/property, and demolishes this, and only then can you take an slave, and thats sollely to repair or in any other form compensate what this person/s have done to YOU or Your home/propertys.
    There is NO other insident or whatever cause, to take an slave in Islam.
    This practising of taking an Slave is exactly the same as to the present system of law, if you brake into another mans house and destroys it, YOU will have to pay, or go to jail and then pay.
    You see it dont you, but I gess the “freinds of Isreael” and the pack of Hasbaratnjiks dont see it because they will not tell you the truth about Islam.
    Islam is an peaceful religion, period.

    I am in awe, is there anyone reading the Quran, at all, huh.
    And so on.

    And of course, Google(crap), and like the rest, I use DuckDuck(crap), witch is basicly the same crappy seach engine and an seach engine whom is an propagannda tool, as Google, where Jihad watch and sites like that ALLWAYS pops up when you seach for anything, no matter what about Islam, they ALLWAYS pops up first.
    Yea, wounder why.

    Atheism is the most hideous religious quasi belife system we have to day, insane lying scums, druling something about religious delutional peoples, while they belive in magic aka the evolution ans shit like that.
    Wanking an Box with nothing, long anouf and they claim you will get Something, from nothing.
    Muhahaha
    Idiots an mass, and they are the wurst scammers and liers of us all, no shame and all gore.
    Stupid people, period, not even an intellectual challange anymore, why waist time on ignorant fools.

    peace

    • Jacek Wolski

      There is only one true God, and his name is Odin

  • John Romerro

    Thankyou "Thesaker" for writing this in great detail and with sincerity as shown clearly in between the lines. Before I say anything more about your analysis on Islam or to say your effort to make a clear distiction between wahabi/salafi "islam and true Islam, I would like to answer few commentors through this platform.

    It’s sad but true that these days writing such things on Islam based on logic and valid reasons to such audience is like Jimmy Page playing guitar in front of cows. Most people reading this are completely unaware of what actually they r reading about. All they see is someone trying to distinct between real Islam and violent beheaders Islam but they are like ohhh someone trying to favor Islam, ohhhh he must be a Muslim blah blah blah. Just like old time mothers in law whose fundamental job was to critize every single action of their daughters in law whether she does right or wrong.
    Like I said most readers have no clue what is being said here about Islam in fact I am dam sure they have no idea about other religions particularly about Christianity. Though they try to picture themselves as saviors of Christianity or they have so much pain for Chiristians or should I say only for European Chiristians. The fundamental fact they ignore is that despite decades of wars in Middle east still there r more Chiristians living in Muslim countries than in Eu or in the west. Now how they were treated there then just ask some Chiristian from Syria or Libya or from Egypt. For now another living example is Lebanon how Christians are luving for centuries peacefully with arab Muslims. I know these critics wont do this because they are grannies. It makes me wonder when someone talks about European Chiristians and I can't hold myself  asking them where are the Chiristians in Europe?.  I mean yes there are but the majority is on the papers only. Still wondering? Remember only few years ago in France there was a huge media headlines about a French couple who tried to get marry in the church and the pope called the doctors to check if they were mentally ill or something because no one in decades ever married in churches around France. I myself living in Nordic country knows how people run away from the name religion. So don't tell me there are practical Chiristians but yes paper Chiristians you find many. You don't believe me listen to pope Francis's latest speech to young people in Italy. I am pretty much sure the wide majority here don't even know who is pope Francis.
    Having said so much in the end I would like to say if you really want to see the proof of true Islam just try to know the Islam of "Hezbollah" or Iran. That's why after the end of decades long sanctions tje Iranian president went to meet pope Francis in Vetican even before meeting Italian president or prime minister. But if you have already decided that no matter whatever someone says you will remain ignorant and will always oppose and hate then you are a granny.

  • George Washington

    So nice of the racists on South Front to come out so we can see who they all are…

    I knew half these people were just anti-Muslim bigots who talk shit about Daesh because they can get away with it in the context of the Syrian war.

    • George Washington

      Talking about the comments section, not the article above :P

  • Richard Meier

    Many people want to explain Islam. They come to different conclusions. Other want to explain how peacefull the Islam is. But only the coran is the foundation. Look at this : Surah 2, 216 216. Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it.or Surah 2, 191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out;
    There are many other surahs . Please you wil find them with google. Look also at the live of Mohummed. He beheaded 900 jewish men. Their heads are still in Mekka underground. Even the life of Muhammed is full of crimes. It is our luck that a lot of muslim people do not know the coran nor the live of Mohammned!!

  • Halford Mackinder

    “If a Muslim commits a sin against Islam, he ceases to be a Muslim” – that is the gist of Saker’s argument, which, of course, is not an argument at all. It would be as if I were to say, “if a Nationalist ever tries to conquer another nation, he ceases to be a Nationalist because Nationalism is against conquest of outside Nations. Therefore, no Nationalist force has ever tried to conquer another country.” It’s a nice logical package that is meaningless in the real world. Saker’s idea that a person ceases to be a Muslim if they fail to adhere to any particular tenet of Islam is absurd on its face.