This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/903
August 2, 2005
By: Vernon Richards, author of ‘Islam Undressed‘
Many misguided pundits, having no specific knowledge of the culture and philosophy of Islam, continue to attribute the core cause of terrorism to poverty and desperation, proffering the solution of undermining terrorists support base by providing increased aid. The assumption is the recipients of food, material, and monies will feel grateful and perhaps start to love us instead of hating us. This is wishful ‘magical' thinking at its worst. Any review of empirical evidence and history of radical Islam suggests that all such assumptions are delusional if not dangerous. As has been demonstrated in Saudi Arabia, widespread prosperity does not prevent either Jihad or the creation of terrorists…it simply better funds it. The lack of gratitude we see today from Islamic recipients of aid is likely because they view the donations as a Jizya tax, which Muhammad instructs Muslims are fully entitled to.
When a charitable man knows of a family's need for food, he will do the neighborly thing and impart of his substance, even delivering it to the doorstep. The giver of aid, by principle, neither asks for nor expects thanks. However, as a practical matter it would be unthinkable to deliver a spaghetti dinner to a neighbor who shoots-up our children as they play. Hungry or not, when a society, government, or culture seeks your destruction, the last thing you want to do is enable that effort. It seems completely irrational to us, but a rationale exists in the minds of devout Muslims that it is proper to teach their youth to hate and seek the destruction of America. The foundation of those attitudes as are instilled into young people by mothers and fathers, religious leaders, school teachers, the media, and by civic organizations and national governments in hostile lands. The root of all prejudice, including the hatred felt by those who hijacked the four aircraft on Sept 11, is first taught in the home. Egyptian Mohamed el-Amir, whose son Mohamed Atta hijacked the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Centre, initially declared that he did not understand how his son could have acted in such a way, claiming he had raised his son to be a good Muslim. More recently his true colors were revealed as he praised his sons actions and declared his intent to support more terrorism. Though it may seem cruel, we need to re-evaluate if we should be providing support to any people pursuing a murderous agenda destructive to democracy.
Yasin Hassan Omar, the Somali asylum-seeker, is the 7/17 London Warren Street bomber caught on tape. Omar shared a flat with the No 26 bus bomber, Ibrahim, who moved in with him 2 years ago. Omar had been getting a £88/week housing benefit to pay for a council property flat since 1999, and also received substantial income support, immigration officials say. So for six years British taxpayers have financed Omar's preparations to kill to the tune of £27,456 ($47,789) in rent, plus even more in other support. As it turns out all 4 bombers had been the ungrateful recipients of significant ‘welfare' payments. Apparently violently inclined Muslim immigrants are quite savvy at exploiting such programs in support of Jihad..
The question of personal/foreign aid to hostile peoples/nations needs to be re-addressed within the context of the newly redefined "War on Hateful (Islamic) Ideology". The popular idea promoted by leftists that poverty causes terrorism has been shown in numerous terrorist profiles to be false, yet still the UN repeatedly asks wealthy nations to re-double foreign aid, naming poverty as a cause of terrorism. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has also weighed in saying: "We have to put hope back in the hearts of people. We have to show people who might move in the direction of terrorism that there is a better way". Businessmen like Ted Turner concur, saying: "The reason that the World Trade Center got hit is because there are a lot of people living in abject poverty out there who don't have any hope for a better life". Bush policy has largely complies, increasing aid to impoverished Muslim peoples worldwide. The vast majority of Palestinians, because of the focus on its people and leadership on terror, live hand to mouth on the ‘charity' of European, American, and Muslim states. Some argue the entire pseudo-nation are paid mercenaries serving in the cause of Islam. For our support and subsidy of the people, Americans diplomats were targeted and murdered in the West Bank trying to deliver scholarships to needy Palestinians, and then locals stoned their would-be rescuers. We give nearly $2 billion a year in aid to Egypt, second only to Israel, while its media openly spews anti-American hatred, and which is in fact the Arab epicenter of such pollution. For our investment we have purchased not gratitude, but disrespect. The US and other countries have expended billions trying to rebuild Iraq, while devote Muslim ‘insurgents' blow up the work as fast as possible killing as many workers as possible. Even before Sept 11th the US had been the largest contributor of humanitarian aid in Afghanistan and other parts of the Islamic world. The Taliban were all-to-willing to accept Western aid to further their efforts, just as the Palestinian Authority is all-too-willing to accept foreign funds in support of its aims. Gullible US/European governments struggle to comply with extortion requests as Palestinians clamor for ever more money, equipment, training, and infrastructure. On Feb 11, 2003, The United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), asked donating countries for more money to continue its assistance to Palestinians. Its representative, Hansen, said UNRWA exceeded its $400 million budget, distributing food parcels, rebuilding houses destroyed by the Israeli military and maintaining emergency clinics for the sick and wounded.
Paying subsidies to Islamic states to suspend global Jihad terrorism is tantamount to paying ransom, in effect temporarily buying one's own peace and security as a ransomed privilege. But according to Osama and his ilk that ‘privilege' expired long ago and cannot be bought back, which leaves even promoters of such subsidies wondering exactly what it is we are paying for today? With enough money thrown at Islam, is it even possible to put the Jihad Genie back in the bottle? Any who still think so know nothing of Islam and its long love affair with Jihad. Payers continue to live in delusion thinking they can control Jihadists with generosity, whereas in fact extortionists always dictate the terms of such arrangements, with the extorted continuing to have little or no influence. History has demonstrated convincingly that societies who pay such tribute are destined to eventually disappear. Those who pay ransom for peace and security will always find themselves subservient to their new masters. It can never work, because Islamic terrorists hate us because of their ideology, and filling up the coffers of Third World governments and the pockets of their despots and cronies will do nothing to change that central, governing fact.
Bill Clinton promised and delivered huge sums in economic and humanitarian support to North Korea, including oil shipments, food, and even a light-water nuclear reactor. The American people received in return a piece of paper promising to suspend development of nuclear weapons. That agreement, never honored, has no value except as proof that providing blanket appeasement and aid to hateful regimes is a very unwise thing to do. The policy may yet prove fatal to millions of South Koreans, if not millions of Americans if/when the rogue state delivers one or more device to proxies lusting to set them off in the USA. Today technicians in North Korea still chow down on food provided by free peoples, as they build bombs designed to kill huge numbers of their benefactors. Aid to North Korea still has not, and will not, result in removing the North Korean threat. Instead it will only serve to prop-up the very government responsible for the shortages.
Policies of bribery and appeasement are a slippery slope that strengthens an enemy and weakens the giver. In light of current realities, all aid should probably now be qualified to insure none of it will be used, directly or indirectly, to destroy us, or to strengthen in any way militant Islamic societies committed to our destruction. It's time to collectively confess that governments that either cannot or will not stop promoting or allowing such hatred are not our allies, are not even neutral, but are in fact belligerents whose enmity should be accepted rather than ignored. State department coddling and financial/humanitarian-aid notwithstanding, nothing we can ever do will make Islamic terrorists love us, we can only make them fear and respect us. We must ask ourselves, does aid given to these people enable the luxury of spending their time planning Jihad, or would the militants and extremists be less anxious to destroy us if circumstances required them to be more actively engaged in their own support? Would the absence of aid force these able bodied individuals to instead concentrate on legitimate efforts to meet basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing? We must be pragmatic and realize that the first order of business of any society is self-preservation. We must without paranoia see our enemy, Islamic Hatred, clearly with all its roots and support structures, even if part of that structure comes from our own government and other charitable sources of aid.
To help in raising the standard of living and self sufficiency of others is a noble cause worthy of pursuit, but common sense and self preservation now cry out for re-focusing those efforts toward more worthy recipients less inclined to kill us. Certainly there is no shortage of needy peoples in North, Central, and South American countries, or in Russian and European societies as they struggle to transition to democratic governments and free economies. So how to respond, … do we bury Islamic peoples in charity, sympathy, goodwill, and understanding? At issue is whether we should we be providing logistical support to any nation where majorities of extreme Muslim people express hatred towards free democratic nations, and wherein organizations exist, drawn from a core anti-American culture, with designs to harm us.
When the British retook the Falkland Islands, the fact that Argentina had failed miserably to provide for the support of their own forces was an important factor in the decision making process for those beleaguered foot-soldiers to give up the fight, and which ultimately resulted in reducing friendly causalities and expediting the campaign. This is the nature of war. A military siege, by definition, is to force an enemy into submission and capitulation by extreme methods, which outside of war are considered inhumane. Historically, the ‘civilian' population suffers all kinds of shortages when a government struggles for conquest or its survival by force of arms. Although collateral damage and innocent blood are regrettable and should be avoided, an enemy cannot be allowed to cower behind the protection offered by its own innocent victims. It is incumbent on the peoples who suffer at the hands of repressive and dictatorial leaders who bring nothing but war, despair, and hunger to their own lands, to rise up and depose of the scoundrels. The people who suffer must understand that the solution to the problem is for Muslims to rise up against terrorists in their neighborhoods, including violent Imams preaching hate, and bring real reform to their religion and culture. Humanitarian aid and rebuilding activity is normally considered appropriate after capitulation, because logistical support to an enemy is unthinkable. Yes, it is cruel and brutal, but war is impossible to sanitize to a form palatable to liberal western sensibilities.
The Red Cross and other international aid organizations did not make humanitarian deliveries to Japan in the period between Pearl Harbor and Japans unconditional surrender, nor to Germany and Hitler. Anyone suggesting that food and monetary aid be sent to Hitler in hopes to influence the reform of Nazism would have been mocked and then sent to the insane asylum. Equivalent outrageous suggestion get a pass today. On Dec 7th 1941 a beleaguered West realized that pacifism meant suicide, and the Sermon on the Mount was temporarily suspended in pursuit of War. During the Cold-War no aid was provided to prop-up communist regimes, which led directly to the downfall of the failed system. On Sept 11th enemies we neither provoked nor sought bring death to us, eating the bread we gave them.
As we struggle to make sense of September 11 and decide how best to fight Jihadists, it would be instructive to remember the 1801-1805 war that first brought the United States into conflict with Muslim terrorists from countries in the Middle East. The example of the fledgling US government dealings with Muslim terrorist pirates in the late 1700's operating in North Africa's Barbary Coast (and protected by Muslim nations) demonstrated clearly that paying tribute never works anyway, rather it simply emboldens them to take further action.
In the late 1700's it seemed impossible for Muslim states along the Barbary Coast to ignore awkward American merchant vessels, no match for the speedy Muslim corsairs, traveling through the Mediterranean. After the War of Independence, the Royal Navy no longer protected shipping from the rebellious American colonies, and piracy became intolerable. After seizing their cargo and scuttling the vessels, the pirates would ransom the ill-fated seamen, or sell them into slavery. It was a lucrative for the pirates, and the Muslim states also dependant on the plunder. The US responded and sent missions to the Barbary states of Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco and Tunis proposing to pay an annual sum to each of the local Muslim warlords for American vessels protection. The amounts paid were equivalent to the billions paid to Muslim states today.
By 1801 it became clear that the policy of appeasement had failed. The Pasha of Tripoli along with other Barbary States demanded larger sums, and when they were not offered piracy resumed. America learned its policy of accommodation only encouraged the Barbary brigands to seize more ships and take more captives. Things were to change with the election of Thomas Jefferson, principal architect of the Declaration of Independence, and an outspoken opponent of the practice of tribute. He argued that any policy of appeasement would fail because, "in conveying weakness, it encouraged further treachery". Jefferson's response to the renewed piracy was to dispatch naval forces. Tripoli responded by declaring war on the United States. For the next two years the U.S. Navy conducted running operations against the Barbary pirates. The American battle cry was "millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute". The fighting during those days saw many acts of heroism that established the U.S. Navy as a force to be reckoned with. In an 1805 action (now immortalized in the Marine Corps hymn) the USS Constitution supported the landing of Marines on "the shores of Tripoli". The Americans and their allies destroyed the harbor citadel serving as the headquarters for the pirates. For much of the next decade, American merchant shipping passed unmolested through the Mediterranean. Good policy supported by firm action replaced the foolishness of appeasement, and brought success in America's first war with Middle Eastern terrorism. Let's not forget that in the end nations paying tribute are neither respected nor left unmolested
This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/903