Friday, March 10, 2006

The Islamintern

The Islamic InternationalThe The Bloody Borders Project got widespread linkage, attracting a lot of visitors and bringing in a variety of comments. Most of them were supportive and constructive, but there was one notable exception.

Normally I don’t respond to such a negative attack; I just let the thing lie there like a turd on the sidewalk. After all, And Dymphna has already torn the poor fellow a new one in a subsequent comment.

But this particular one got me to thinking. So, first, here is what our esteemed commenter said in full:


I smell right-wing here and anti-Islam and plenty of prejudice. This is preaching to a crowd of people who...

a/ think Islamo-fascism exists and
b/ are clearly bigoted towards Islam

Your research and graph is very nice but proves nothing, many of the acts of terror you talk of are carried out by a wide range of groups, not a single Islamic force. Many of these ‘acts of terror’ are in fact acts of freedom fighting, circumstances vary but you are genralising [sic] all the data to fit your view of this Islam vs Christianity tinfoil hat wearing madness you are clearly buying into.

Shall we make graphs of US acts of terror? Shall we make graphs of UK acts of terror showing the volume killed? We would see a lot more hot spots there.

Isolating this dubious data only enables you to fit it to your agenda and your agenda is one of the bigot, of capturing a whole religion in a nice, bit-size packet of hate that follows your personal agenda.

I’ll say this, I have no fear of Islam but a fear of the UK and US governments stealing the freedoms of their people away from them, of sending troops to die in a war that has no basis in fact, that reaks [sic] of expansionism, I fear a nation that shows no respect for International law and the UN (and no I’m not talking about Israel but I could be...) and acts as it sees fit, forcing a polarisation of beliefs on a global scale; making people choose sides rather than work together for the common good.

This post and others like it across the blogsphere only helps to push this ‘us against them’ agenda and feeds the fire of seperation [sic] and ignorance.

Well, he really told us, didn’t he?

Since I’m preaching to the choir here in the Vast Right-Wing Echo Chamber, I might as well let fly.

First of all, I didn’t realize I was trying to “prove” anything. I collected a huge mass of statistics and displayed them graphically so as to reveal as far as possible the underlying patterns. The terrorist attacks represented by these statistics were all carried out by Muslims with the avowed purpose of following the will of Allah. If anyone doubts that, look at the original sources for the figures, the news stories behind the stark numbers.
The Bloody Borders Project

I guess all of the reporters and data collectors were lying right-wing partisans, inventing or slanting the “facts” to further their fascistic agenda. Or something like that.

Seriously, though, it’s in the realm of fact that during the last century no other religion — not Christianity, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Judaism — has anything approaching the record that Islam has for murderous attacks against innocent people. You have to throw in the brutality of the 20th century’s “secular religions” — Communism and Nazism — before you find anything comparable. And modern Islamism is giving the old commissars and gauleiters a run for their money when it comes to gratuitous killing.

But I don’t think our commenter would be so foolish as to deny that these attacks are done in the name of Islam or are as widespread as indicated by the map. It’s just that they’re not as bad as our crimes, as the Anglosphere’s brutal state terrorism.

And there is also our delusion that there is any connection between these disparate groups, our mass insanity that makes us believe that all of these attacks are somehow connected with one another. That’s probably our biggest error, blinded as we are by our mindless ideology of hate.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The Islamofascists bear more than a passing resemblance to the Communists of the mid-20th century. Consider:

  • They are international in scope, transcending national boundaries and languages.
  • Their clandestine networks are guided and funded by shadowy, secret central groups abroad.
  • The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation is a central strategy for their cause.
  • They are aided and abetted by apologists and fellow travelers in the West.
  • One of the prime vectors for the spread of their contagion is the Academy.

As Donald Rumsfeld and Wretchard have often said: this is not a war of armies or munitions. It is a war of ideas, and will be won or lost in the journals and on the television screens of the West.

To that end, the Islamists are closely following the playbook of the Communists. Like the Communists, they are spread out in loosely-connected clandestine networks. Like the Communists, they are guided and funded by a few sources, but operate independently as “indigenous” movements. And, like the Communists, they understand that the success in the propaganda war is absolutely crucial.

As soon as Communism consolidated power in Soviet Russia, it began its preparation for the World Revolution by establishing the Communist International. For the next sixty years or so the dedicated cadres and willing dupes of the Comintern took Soviet money, propaganda, and materiel, and used them to undermine and overthrow governments all over the world.

But Stalin did not directly command most of these operations. Even at the apogee of Soviet power, the Kremlin could only enforce its ukases in the Soviet Union itself and the “near abroad,” those communist vassals immediately contiguous with Soviet territory.

Tito, Hoxha, Mao, and Castro all followed Soviet guidelines when its suited their interests, and departed from them when required. But all of them were acting in the name of Communism, and all were intent on establishing their version of its soul-destroying totalitarianism.

And so it is with militant Islam. The Islamists are not directly controlled by bin Laden or King Abdullah or the mullahs of Iran; but they work towards a common purpose, co-operating with each other out of self-interest and deferring the cutting of each other’s throats until the opportune moment arrives.

Look at the Sunni-Shiite division as a parallel between Soviet Communism and Maoism. Give Zarqawi the role of Josip Broz Tito, with his propensity to ignore central direction and follow his own plans. The Communists had the KGB to spread money and disinformation; the Islamofascists have the Saudi “charities” to perform the same functions.

Call it the Islamintern. Like the Comintern, it attracts the marginal, the disaffected, the petty thugs and common criminals, and gives them a clear and simple ideology to guide their actions. It allows them to continue in their customary ways — murdering, raping, stealing and extorting — while furnishing them with a mandate from Allah to do so. The Communists were following the dictates of History, and the Islamists are carrying out the will of God.

To the willing dupes in the West, there is no connection among all these groups, just as there was none among the Viet Cong and the FMLN and revolutionaries of Angola. But somehow all these native freedom fighters just happened to be fomenting violence in the same way at the same time.

And somehow all these terrorists spread all over the globe just happen to be murdering and maiming in the name of Allah. It’s just coincidence.

The Comintern, of course, was aided in its efforts by all the fools and shills in the West.

The 1930s had George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Walter Duranty, and The New York Times.

In the 21st century, the Islamintern has Dan Rather, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, and The New York Times.

Every generation has its useful idiots.


Freedom Fighter said...

Excellent, Baron! I found your comparison scintillating and gave you a link on my site.

And I love the term `Islamintern'

Chip said...

Trying to bring global utopian visions into the cesspool of the real UN and complexity of the Islamic world (scary term) is like bringing a pencil to a gun fight.

American Crusader said...

You mean it's not just a coincidence that the recent terrorist attacks in India were caused by Muslims or that the recent attacks in Malaysia were at the hands of Muslims...I could go with this theme forever, but you get my point. What I am at a loss for is the driving force behind all these Islamic apologists. They can't all hate America and Western values can they? One thing for sure, if it looks like a turd and smells like a turd, it probably is a turd.

American Crusader said...

PS..Bruce, when cooking meth, stay in a well ventilated area.

Ronbo said...

Excellent Blog!

A Five Star Ronbo Rating!

Down with the Islamists!

Dymphna said...

Anum Makhtar--

Words are cheap, even sacred words. Actions are what matter. The mullahs in Iran ordered attacks YESTERDAY on peaceful women asking for change. The unarmed women were beaten with electric batons...

So much for living under Shar'ia. What I don't understand is if Islam is so great, why aren't Muslims living in a Muslim country?

Why come west?

Baron Bodissey said...

Sorry for my absence, everybody -- I had to be out all afternoon. Thanks for all the comments & links.

Tinseltown Takfir -- "Master Faith"! I love it.

niall said...

Mukhtar, I'll be glad to apologize when I can do it from the bimma of the biggest synagogue in Mecca, and not before then.

You'll be a long time in waiting...

mts said...

Great packaging of Islam, Baron!

Your critic did a wonderful job of setting up your comparison of Islam to communism. If not for him, we wouldn't have gotten this analogy. I like critics - they're the sharpening stone that keep our points sharp. They keep us on our toes, and make us do the homework to back up our arguments.

X said...


One out of four. Not bad for a fanatic...

"Islam" means submission. None of those other men taught the kind of submission that Islam teaches. They taught submission to a loving, caring parent, submission out of love for that parent, not out of fear. Mohammed taught submission to an angry, distant master, out of fear and in the face of anger and violence.

I've skimmed the koran. I know one or two interesting facts about it. The word love, for instance, is used fewer times in the Koran thant it is in just the gospel of Mark, and the context is very different. About half the references to love in the new testament refer to the love God has for those that accept him - and indeed the love he has for all mankind, though unable to express it because they've rejected him. In contrast, the love so rarely mentioned in the Koran is the love Muslims must, must show to Allah, lest they be punished in hell for all eternity.

People often criticise the christian god for being cruel and capricious. They say "How can he be all loving if he's willing to let people go to hell for not believing in him?". It's been the source of many theological arguments, but it's logically concievable. In contrast, Allah doesn't merely let people go to hell; he actively sends them there. He actively guides them on that path because it's "his will". Now I don't know about you but, to me, that sounds pretty cruel. These people Allah guides apparently have no means of repentence and no way of redemption.

The Quran itself is a mishmash of zoroastorian, christian and hindu scriptural sources with a lot of pre-islamic arab polytheism thrown in for good measure. Remember the christian priest that Mohammed allegedly met when he was a nipper? That priest was a means of expressing Mohammed's influence by what is known as the Arian heresy, or the belief that Jesus was not divine. That's right. Mohammed was influenced by christians. He learned a lot from the christians...

He also wasn't illiterate. In those days you couldn't learn much from the christians without knowning how to read or write. They taught you these skills as a matter of course, the better to discuss scriptural ideas, because the preservation of known scripture was very important to the early christians, who still had vague memories of the pre-christian roman empire persecuting them for their beliefs. Mohammed, you see, incorporated certain non-canonical teachings in to the Koran that were known from writings of early christians, but weren't widely preached because they weren't accepted as the christian truth, even by the arians.

bordergal said...

"I see Islamophobia is here because there is no study of the prophet Mohammed's words".

Actually, I have studied the prophet Mohammed's words, and the story of his life through Bukhari and other sources.

Prior to that study, I had a relatively neutral position towards Islam. Now that I've actually studied the faith and its history, I'm appalled that any rational human being could think of Islam as a "religion of peace", or of Mohammed as anything other then a raving psychopath.

Also, as has been said by many before me, a phobia is an irrational fear. Unfortunately for your argument, people around the world have plenty of rational reasons to fear and distrust Islam.

Unknown said...

Excellent post, Baron. I hope you don't mind that I linked to it.

I've been following the revelations regarding the propaganda of Islamists with great interest. I find it fascinating that even though the players have changed, the game is still the same.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

You dedicated a whole post to this because you don't like voices of dissent, your agenda is a hateful one, the data manipulated to fit said agenda and an obsession with the idea we are are under attack.

First off, you have credited attacks in the UK and Europe that quite simply haven't happened and I should know, I live there. Therefore, it would be fair to say that much of your other date is also false.

You gathered this data with the solitary aim of proving your bigotry had a basis in fact and the 'swarm of Islam' is upon us; this is not a good basis for presenting some thing as an honest bit of research, it is so bias ridden it beggers belief.

You have tried to counter my claim that this is not some coherent force by using Communism as a counter example; this only serves to expose your right-wing prejudice and desperation to find another enemy to train your sights on after the collapse of communism. The lines drawn are so general that we could fit the military behaviour of the US under Reagan to that template.

You have also ignored the point that much of what you claim as terror is response to oppression. One man's freedom fighter and all that... This would further reduce the incidents of alleged terror.

Finally, you also skip over the US/UK government sponsored terrorism that far outways the loss of life caused by Islamic groups. You did this with your obsession with Islam and dismissing the rest as non-religious based violence. What difference does that make? Whether religion is a motor or not?

And here's the rub, you are so blinkered with your agenda that you can only see these acts as connected to Islam, when in fact, many of these groups pay scant attention to the Koran and define themselves outside many of its laws.

It's like saying all Catholics are violent after the genocide in Rwanda or the attacks of the IRA.

You also make no mention of the oppression, goading and general negative behaviour of a mainly Christian West to a religion that has been decided is somehow 'sub-human'.

We live in dangeous times but not because of Islam. We live in dangerous times of people trying to draw lines in the sand, to try and start a battle based on false views and false acts of a religion, there is only a few more steps to take before we are talking about Muslims as we talked about Jews.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Daniel, you remind me of some men I know who are at work all day while Mom is home with the baby. They come home, change one diaper, and then when the next one needs changing say, "It's your turn. I changed the last one."

Now there might be a better reason (or not), but who should change the diaper isn't the point, so let's not go there. The point is that *reason* is as smelly as the diaper. It's as though all the dirty diapers of the day just did not exist because the man wasn't there looking at them.

That reason is as smelly as yours. Just because you 'lived there' does not make you any sort of authority, nor does it mean that we should trust you. I suspect you weren't looking in the right direction.

A terrorist act is still a terrorist act, whether Daniel happened to witness it or not. You are not the center of the universe.

Captain USpace said...

Daniel is a true dhimmidiot...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe hopes
Europe surrenders...

hate your proud Christian culture
blame yourself and just give up

ttueoop said...

Excellent post Baron!

I see you've stirred up a couple of the apologists and appeasers.

Hello Daniel and Bruce! I see you're crying "foul" without substantiating your claims. Atypical response, eh.

You suggest that Baron (and most likely the rest of us) "STOP DEMONISING THE FUTURE FAITH OF MANKIND."

I suggest to you and your fellow muslims that you stop giving us good reason to "demonize" your faith. Bring it up to speed and into the new world.

Admit muhammad was the lying, deceitful pedophile that he was and move one from there.

kamell said...

Greetings for all my friends who read or will read the words of that blog. That author didn't put the reality in his articles. I'm a Muslim man and i have more than 100 friend, about 40 of them are Christians. Any one of them consider me as his brother and I'm too. I'm drilling on the web daily and I can't found one blog or website owned by Muslim in any continent swear the Christians or the jew or swear Moses or Jesus. I like the world and all humankind and I love the western history and my study about the medieval Europe and I respect the western people because they carry the honesty of the civilization. I cant ask Hitler why he did what he did but any one should ask himself again why Hitler did that in Holo.. and why the crusaders did that in 1096 AD. I love all human and i didn't hate the author of that blog but i hope that he respect the prophets and religions.

pst314 said...

"You dedicated a whole post to this because you don't like voices of dissent"

Brilliant, Daniel. They "don't like dissent" so they responded to your speech with more speech. I guess in your mind disagreement is synonymous with hostility to free speech.

pst314 said...

"I see Islamophobia is here because there is no study of the prophet Mohammed's words."

You see nothing. There has been plenty of examination of what the Koran and Hadith say.

I don't like what they say, and I will not submit.