Source: Muslims are Very Strange People
With permission from
June 7, 2017
After the bombing in Manchester and the bridge attack in London, it is more clear than ever: Muslims are very strange people, inherently violent and desiring of death in a way that few of us can even begin to imagine.
The proof is there for all to see.
For example, when the US-led “international community”, under enormous pressure from pro-Zionist power brokers decided, in 1948, to award the land occupied for centuries by Palestinians to a group of Jews from Europe, and then looked the other way while those same Jews engaged in ethnic cleansing and herded the surviving Palestinians into squalid camps far from their legally-titled homes and lands, some of those Palestinians got angry and, and as part of their attempts at redress, lashed out violently at some of those Jews.
Very strange. No non-Muslim that I know would ever think of doing such a thing under similar circumstances.
In the 1950s, a charismatic Egyptian army officer named Nasser got tired of having his country and its resources, including the strategically located Suez Canal, treated as British properties on which their native presence was tolerated only insofar as they showed proper deference to the foreign Sahibs. He thus began to educate his people, including the country’s women, in secular and modern ways, and made moves to nationalize important elements of the country’s means of production thus keeping Egyptian wealth in the country for Egyptians, while at the same time encouraging Arabs in neighboring countries to do the same.
His efforts were greeted with an unprecedented campaign of demonization and, in 1956, a French, British and Israeli invasion of his country. He continued undeterred in his efforts and 11 years later, was treated, despite what you might have read and been told elsewhere, to another unprovoked attack by the Israelis.
In the wake of his death, the Western powers succeeded in finally putting a “reliable” satrap by the name of Anwar Sadat in power in that country. For the last 40 years the satrapy he institutionalized, supported by billions of dollars of bribes from the US, has systematically betrayed the most basic aspirations of the great majority of the Egyptian people. As they starved and the country’s once encouraging leap into modernity stalled, a grotesque and bullying class of parasites weaned on the pork of American “aid” grew fat and happy. Egyptian dedication to the aspirations of freedom and non-colonial dignity among other Arab nations was replaced with slavish loyalty to US, Saudi, and Israeli strategic interests.
All this has made some Egyptians feel angry and hopeless and desirous of revenge against the people from abroad who engineered this turn of events. This, of course, is very odd and aberrant, indeed, pathological behavior, something that, were it to happen to non-Muslims, would clearly result in much different and much more peaceful and accepting behavior.
In 1952, Iran elected a leader who had the audacious idea of using the oil that lay under the ground of his proud country to finance the well-being of its people. This obviously ridiculous idea (how could he not know that the US always has first dibs on all natural resources in the world regardless of geographical location.) resulted in a coup planned and carried out by the CIA and MI6 which ended in his overthrow and imprisonment, and the installation of a pro-US puppet with the pompous title of Shah who tortured and terrorized his own people with impunity over the next quarter century, while simultaneously spending the part of his county’s wealth that US allowed him to keep, on himself and on the purchase of US weapons systems.
This angered a lot of people in the country and in 1979, having seen that the route of secular reform and modernization that they had initially chosen in the wake of World War II blocked (the aforementioned overthrow of Mossadedgh in 1953), and then turned into a grotesque and ghoulish parody of itself during the reign of the Shah (1953-1979), they turned to a religiously-grounded form of resistance.
This is clearly very strange behavior, indicative of a deep cultural sickness. No other non-Muslim nation that I know of would ever think of doing such a thing.
Can you imagine if during the communist era in Poland when most secular forms of resistance to the Soviet controlled dictatorship were blocked, people were to have turned to the inherently non-democratic and sexist Catholic Church led by Cardinal Wyszinski and then Cardinal Wotyla in their fight against the foreign domination of their society? It would have been absolutely outrageous, something no one in the civilized would of freedom-loving peoples would ever tolerate or embrace, never mind support through billions of dollars in covert funding!
Upon the fall of the Ottoman empire, the British plucked an obscure Wahhabist-oriented family, disdainful of most forms of modernity as well as inter-sectarian tolerance, something that—for all of the Ottomans’ other faults— had marked their domination of the Mashriq and the Arabian Peninsula for centuries, and turned them into the absolute rulers of a new entity called Saudi Arabia.
The terns of the deal were clear. The Saudis could do whatever the hell they wanted to their people and to their Peninsular neighbors want as long as they kept the oil under their country flowing to those, who by dint of their whiteness and superior culture actually hold title to it. And with the exception of a few testy moments in the 70s when the Saudis suffered from unusual pangs of solidarity with their both their fellow Arabs and fellow oil-exporting nations, they have lived up to their side of the bargain. And the Anglo-Americans have done likewise, letting the robe-wearing pre-moderns pretty much do whatever they want at home, including consolidating—with the inestimable help of US arms and technology—the most overtly oppressive civil society in the world, one that, for good measure, operates on various forms of slave labor.
This made a number of people in that country and the satellite nations on the Arabian Peninsula that they effectively dominate feel downtrodden and hopeless, and in some cases, prone to attempts to salve their sense of locked-down desperation with violence.
Can you imagine any group of Christian people dominated by a corrupt and medieval caste of “nobles” invented by a far away country and kept in power those same foreign people in order to insure the effective looting of the country’s resources, getting angry about such things?
As you and I know, there would be no excuse for any outburst of frustration and violence from such good Christian people. Yes, Muslims truly do have a unique predilection to violence
We can see this same tendency at work in Iraq, another satrapy cobbled together in 1920 to support British and American neocolonial interests. Influenced by the rise of Baathism (secular Arab Republicanism) in Egypt, Syria and other parts of the Arab world, the Iraqis threw off their British-invented monarchy 1958, a move that greatly disturbed the hearty partisans of democracy in London and Washington. After few years of fumbling around, the CIA and MI6 were finally able to place one of their own men, Saddam Hussein, in control of the state.
All went well for a while. In fact, at one point Saddam proved extremely useful to the US, acting as a proxy warrior against the Islamic Revolution in neighboring Iran. As long as he was he fighting those terrible Iranians, Washington was happy. So great was his prestige in the US “security community” that the US said nothing as he worked to solve his “Kurdish problem” by gassing 3200 to 5000 people to death (injuring some 7,000-10000 more) in the Kurdish city of Halabja on March 16th, 1988.
What Saddam probably did not know, however, was that at the very same time the US was supplying him with arms to fight the crazy and irrational Iranians, it was also sending weapons to the Teheran government. From the US point of view, the plan worked to a tee as the two oil-rich rich countries beat each up for eight long years (1980-88) with the Iranians suffering a mere 1 million combat deaths and the Iraqis suffering somewhere on the order of 300,000-500,000 war fatalities.
Surprisingly, watching an entire generation of people, not to mention much of the modern infrastructure of both countries, wiped out as a result of a war of attrition cynically engineered in Washington to insure that neither of these two oil-rich countries would be able defend themselves against foreign encroachments for the foreseeable future, made some people in these places angry and desirous of revenge against the people who masterminded this caper.
Can you imagine a group of non-Muslims ever feeling that way? It would be unthinkable.
After the end of this carefully designed war of mutual destruction, Saddam started showing disturbing signs of working more forthrightly for the good of his regime than for his original CIA sponsors. So if the reports of more than a few observers are to be believed, the US decided—by having its envoy to Iraq April Glaspie express to Saddam that the US had “no position” on Iraq’s border conflict with Kuwait—to mouse-trap him into invading the small petro-kingdom in 1990, thus providing George Bush Sr. with a pretext for invading his country. When Saddam bit at the bait, the US pounced and waged war on him, smashing Iraq country to pieces. The war is believed to have resulted in the slaughter of over 25,000 Iraqi soldiers and the further destruction of the country’s already battered infrastructure
Then over the next several years, the US placed the already shattered nation under crushing sanctions and a no-fly regime, tactics which were used to further destroy (and keep destroyed) most of the nation’s water purification systems, something that resulted in the death of some 500,00 babies and children, deaths that Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State when this charming regime of infanticide was implemented, famously qualified as a reasonable price to be paid for the achievement of US strategic goals in the country and region
Amazingly, this made a number of Muslins in Iraq other places country angry and desirous of revenge for this policy and the display of moral arrogance that accompanied it.
Clearly, these poor Muslims lack a moral compass. No Christian or Jew that I know would ever become enraged if things like this were to happen to them or their national community.
It soon became clear, however, that even after the purposeful ruination of his country’s infrastructure through bombing and embargo, the deaths of tens of thousands of soldiers in the Gulf War, and those 500,000 children after it, Saddam still had a hard time understanding his responsibility to the international capitalist order and the strategic designs of the US.
So in 2003, for no good reason other than the fact that they knew they could get way with it before a propagandistically-zombified and chronically ignorant US population, the US invaded Iraq and finished the destruction of the country. And then after this enormous act of democracy promotion, it actively fomented civil war and a campaign of targeted bribes and assassinations, a policy for which David Petraeus was ceaselessly lionized the press.
Contrary to all reasonable expectations, seeing the constant death and maiming of their brothers and sisters and realizing that neither they nor their children would be able to live more or less peaceful and productive lives for at least a generation managed to anger a number of Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.
Once again signs of cultural pathology among their ranks were on display for all to see.
In 1962, the Algerians finally threw off the regime of French colonialism that they had lived under since the 1830s, creating a government generally devoted to the idea of modern and secular solutions to their country’s problems. The eight year war that had led to the end of the French domination of Algeria was as bloody and brutal as they come, with the French making no secret of their “right” to use torture and targeted assassination as tools of domination within it.
Within a few short years after the war’s end, however, it soon became clear that the French had no intention of allowing the now nominally independent Algerian government to operate freely on the world stage, or in the realm of domestic policy. In order to achieve this de facto control of the country, they worked assiduously to corrupt its leadership class at every turn. The plan was largely successful. By the end of the 1980s, many Algerians felt that they could no longer trust the secularly-minded generation which had led the struggle for independence, thus turning their attentions to a new generation of Islamist activists who promised to free the country from its endemic corruption and continuing dependence on French power.
In 1991, on the eve of elections that all agreed would be won by the Islamists, the government suspended the electoral process and began rounding up thousands of Islamist activists, setting off a civil war that would last for the next 12 years and cause some 150,000 deaths, with France and the US firmly backing the corrupt if secular government that had thwarted the citizenry’s first attempt to effect true alternation of political power.
Hard as it might be to understand, seeing a government corrupted by the country’s former colonial rulers and backed by the world’s only superpower step in and cancel the country’s electoral process and jail tens of thousands of people whose only crime was to want to try out a new governing ideology, angered a lot of Algerians. And as incredible as it might seem, seeing the same government use French and American intelligence and arms to hunt down—to the tune of tens of thousands of deaths—those same dissidents against official power, managed to piss them off even more.
What went on in Algeria is another obvious manifestation off the unique and clearly aberrant Islamic embrace of violence.
Can you imagine, for example, good Christian people responding violently to attempts backed by outside powers to suspend their political processes in order to effect a virtual continuation of colonial policies?
In 20ll, after having recently rehabilitated the reputation of Moammar Gaddafi, a man who had brought Libya, if not to a state of shining democracy akin to that which exists in Saudi Arabia, to a relatively high standard of living and secular tolerance, the US and its European vassals suddenly turned on him and invaded his country, turning it into rubble and generating—surprise, surprise—an orgy of internecine fighting.
The stated Allied reason for the destruction of the country was that the Libyan strong man was murdering his own citizens. But the real reasons were that a) Libya had some of the most easily accessible high quality crude in the world b) Gaddafi had not been a consistently dependable backer of US geopolitical initiatives and c) as an email written from Sidney Blumenthal to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes clear, the Libyan ruler had some of the biggest known silver and gold reserves in the world, stores that he planned to use to back the creation of a pan-African currency that would free the enormous and much abused continent and all its resources form the tyranny of both the French-controlled CFA Franc and the US dollar system with its well-known mechanisms (IMF, World Bank) for taming/enslaving nations that refuse play their rightful role as servants to US-led international capitalism.
Oddly enough, this calculated destruction of Libya and its leader’s dreams for a life free of subservience to the US and it European underlings made some Muslims angry.
Clearly, there is something deeply sick about a culture where emotions like this can arise and be brought to such open fruition over the mere matter of a premeditated patriacide.
After destroying Libya, the US and its allies used the same playbook in Syria, seizing upon some protests against the country’s secular, albeit not terribly kind, leadership to foment a raging civil war in the country. The US hope was to scare the Assad government into an early collapse. However, when it became clear he would fight back, the US and its allies fell back of the strategy they had used to great effect in the Iran-Iraq war: prolonging the war indefinitely through strategic arms shipments to its various warring groups. Indeed, US intelligence, in an act of economizing that should warm the hearts of all US taxpayers, also set up a so-called “rat line” to run caches of arms seized in the destruction of Libya to its chosen rebel groups in Syria.
The overall goal here?
To insure the maximum degree of physical destruction and human misery in Syria so that the country would not be able to challenge Israeli and US hegemony in the region for several generations to come.
Incredibly, this cold-blooded destruction of one the most sophisticated, multicultural nations in the Islamic world, not to mention the endless flow of miserable refugees it has produced, has made some Muslims angry and desirous of revenge.
This, of course, demonstrates just how big the moral gulf is that separates these Islamic “animals” from people like us.
Needless to say, the only option we have in the face of all this madness is to wage an endless war on these very different people whose way of reacting to events is, as I have clearly shown, completely different than that of all other normal and civilized people in the world.