Why Do They Hate Us?
Conflicts begin with the hope of political, territorial and economic gains. Muslims are encouraged by their leaders to hate us for the same reason that Nazi leaders encouraged Germans to hate the Jews whose wealth and property they had their eyes on. The appeaser consensus obstinately refuses to understand that Muslim violence is not blowback in response to our foreign policy, but an aggressive action intended to extend Muslim power and influence in a vacuum that we have left open for them.
Like gawky teenagers, Americans are far too obsessed with what people thousands of miles away think of them. The first reaction of the ordinary man in the street on December 7, 1941, was not to wonder why the Japanese hated him. It was not even his tenth reaction because at that point he was much too busy hating the Japanese to care why they hated him.
That attitude might not be pretty, but it was a practical response to the exigencies of wartime, and that war, like most wars, was not fueled by emotion, but by territorial aggression. FDR was unconcerned with Japanese emotions, let alone their hearts, minds and livers; because he knew that the conflict did not come down to emotions but to a power struggle between a Japanese empire in the Pacific and the only Western country with a view of the Pacific capable of standing up to the land of the rising sun.
The study of Muslim rage, its wellsprings and tides, is as worthless as the study of Japanese rage in the dying days of the 1930s. Despite the showy displays of violence in the last week by inflamed Chinese mobs attacking Japanese properties and Muslim mobs attacking American properties, the conflicts do not revolve around the axis of emotion, but of power and territory.
The issue, whether it is in the South China Sea or the world, is still that old Lebensraum [space to live]. Hatred is a useful emotion for those-who-want-to-expand-their-territory to feel for the people-whose-territory-they-want-to-expand-into. That is something that every conqueror from Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler knew and intimately understood. If you are going to fight a people, then you might as well hate them too.
The moderns assume that war comes from hate, rather than hate coming from war. They study the rhetoric that our enemies use as pretexts for their acts of war, and lecture us on why Bin Laden was so angry at the United States of Infidels and how a badly dubbed movie led to a "spontaneous" wave of violence on the anniversary of Bin Laden's original attacks.
A short study of war however is enough to teach us that pretexts of the emotional, rather than the territorial kind, do not matter. Hitler's pretexts for war were all manufactured, one after another, to the shame of politicians in London and Paris who took his imaginary grievances seriously.
It did not seem to enter the gentlemanly mind of a Chamberlain that Hitler's issues with his neighbors arose only because he wanted to conquer them. It has similarly not entered the minds of our modern Chamberlains that Muslims are encouraged by their leaders to hate us, for the same reason that Nazi leaders encouraged Germans to hate the Jews whose wealth and property they had their eyes on.
The appeaser consensus obstinately refuses to understand that Muslim violence is not blowback or the uncontrollable reflex of a knee being jerked in response to our foreign policy. It is not a reaction that can be soothed by applying aloe and appeasement, but an aggressive action intended to expand their power and influence. That refusal to see Muslims as actors rather than reactors is rooted in a colonialist view of Third World peoples as the balls in our pinball foreign policy machine, rather than civilizations looking to step into a power vacuum that we have left open for them.
There was nothing spontaneous about this latest wave of violent attacks targeting American interests. It was a coordinated effort across multiple countries with the practical purpose of taking over properties in the Muslim world legally considered American territory, lowering the American flag and replacing it with the black flag of the Jihad and the Caliphate.
The Mohammed video, like Israel, serves as a convenient Grand Unification Theory of Islamic outrage, but the attacks were no more emotional than any other invasion and their meaning can be gleaned from their timing and their tactics, rather than the press releases. The attacks would have gone forward regardless of whether a Coptic filmmaker had dubbed in some lines about Mohammed, because their purpose was to use September 11 to demonstrate Jihadist staying power after the death of Bin Laden and to begin the Jihadist transition from terrorist groups to guerrilla armies.
Muslims do hate us, but the reasons why they hate us, rooted in xenophobic scripture and tribal cruelty, are not why we are at war. Conflicts do not begin out of hate alone, or France and England would still be at each other's throats; they begin with the hope of political, territorial and economic gains. Islam is more than a theology; it is the manifest destiny of over a thousand years of raiders, looters and slave merchants.
If Muslims only hated us, then we could live with that. But like Japan on December 1941, they do not just hate us in the abstract fashion that countries and peoples hate one another. We are not just hated. We are in their way.
Reader comments on this item
|So Let's Get Out of Their Way! [171 words]||Vincent Basehart||May 31, 2013 20:39|
|Some Truth [196 words]||WeMustResist||Sep 26, 2012 03:14|
|WHAT ARE THE ODDS? [494 words]||The Infidel Alliance||Sep 25, 2012 19:42|
|Here's why they hate... [114 words]||The Infidel Alliance||Sep 25, 2012 19:36|
|Earlier [144 words]||Fritz||Sep 25, 2012 18:59|
|Cannot Agree [490 words]||Tytus||Sep 24, 2012 23:33|
|↔ Cannot Agree with Tytus [47 words]||Ishtar||Sep 27, 2012 17:42|
|Just look at the history [211 words]||Shnarkle||Sep 24, 2012 17:54|
|Try convincing the Paultards [21 words]||Tom||Sep 24, 2012 15:11|
|Why Do They Hate Us? A Reply [133 words]||Glenn Fairman||Sep 24, 2012 11:58|
|Another Brilliant Article by Daniel Greenfield [14 words]||Mamala||Sep 24, 2012 11:47|
|Why do they hate us? [159 words]||Sylvie Schapira||Sep 24, 2012 06:09|
Comment on this item
by Louis René Beres
Jihadi violence serves not only to advance the terrorist's delusion of immortality, but also to add, however perversely, an apparent and desperately needed erotic satisfaction, using religion as the justification.
Persuasive promises of immortality -- the desperate hope to live forever -- underlie virtually all major religions.
Washington and Jerusalem should finally address what needs to be done in addition to military remediation -- reinforcing efforts to convince these terrorists that their expected martyrdom is ultimately just an elaborate fiction.
by Gill Gillespie and Shabnam Assadollahi
The aim of the current Iranian regime is clearly to acquire a nuclear weapons capability and to retain as much territory in Iraq as possible under Shia Islamist rule, whatever the human cost. Those aims are also the reason Iran's regime is now trying to intervene in Iraq.
Iran will doubtless be demanding that any cooperation with the West be compensated for by "concessions" permitting its nuclear weapons program.
Involving Iran in Iraq at this point will merely alienate any Sunni allies whose assistance is much needed to defeat IS.
Many people inside Iran have alerted the U.S. Administration for over two years about other industrial facilities being secretly built in Iran and not declared to the International Atomic Energy. So far, all intelligence from within Iran has been wilfully ignored by the Obama Administration.
by Burak Bekdil
The Turkish government "frankly worked" with the al-Nusrah Front, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, along with other terrorist groups.
The Financial Task Force, an international body setting the standards for combating terrorist financing, ruled that Turkey should remain in its "gray list."
While NATO wishes to reinforce its outreach to democracies such as Australia and Japan, Turkey is trying to forge wider partnerships with the Arab world, Russia, China, Central Asia, China, Africa and -- and with a bunch of terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Nusrah Front.
Being NATO's only Muslim member was fine. Being NATO's only Islamist member ideologically attached to the Muslim Brotherhood is quite another thing.
by Samuel Westrop
British politicians seem to be trapped in an endless debate over how to curb both violent and non-violent extremism within the Muslim community.
A truly useful measure might be to end the provision of state funding and legitimacy to terror-linked extremist charities.
by Soeren Kern
"My son and I love life with the beheaders." — British jihadist Sally Jones.
Mujahidah Bint Usama published pictures of herself on Twitter holding a severed head while wearing a white doctor's jacket; alongside it, the message: "Dream job, a terrorist doc."
British female jihadists are now in charge of guarding as many as 3,000 non-Muslim Iraqi women and girls held captive as sex slaves.
"The British women are some of the most zealous in imposing the IS laws in the region. I believe that's why at least four of them have been chosen to join the women police force." — British terrorism analyst Melanie Smith.