Trying to interpret why Islamists kill innocent people is not going to help anything. Islamist leaders are pretty clear about their intention: to spread their ideology by the sword. The problem is not Europe's lack of understanding; it is their blindness to the threat of Islam. Western Europe's urge to virtue signal their tolerance to the rest of the world will be their demise.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Omg. So sick and tired of this stupid narrative. What about the western armies who spent at least the last 20 years spreading "democracy" by the bombs in the middle east and killing far more innocent ? The problem is not about what you are, its about what your corrupt leaders do. Westerners lack of self-criticism and wrong-headedness to control the middle east will be their demise.
Are you implying that I supported Western imperialism of the past twenty years?
I agree that the West played a huge part in causing the destabilization (and try 70 years, not 20), but I am also saying that Europe's leaders should be protecting their people from the resulting radicalized Islamists. Instead they allow them to flood their countries in the name of compassion and multiculturalism.
I'd like to know what you think is "stupid" about the "narrative."
Do you really think the reason a crazy man is killing random people on the street is to force westerners to convert to islam ?
Are you genuinely waiting for the same leaders who carpet bombed the middle east, to take mesures protecting westerners from the dangers of deregulated mass immigration ?
All their talk about compassion and multicultalism is a facade. All they want is cheap labour they can exploit.
From my point of view i see the exact opposite narrative : Western leaders have spent a lot of propaganda, taxpayer money and bombs to prevent muslims to rule their homelands as they wish.
Don't you agree ?
Where do you get the idea that Western leaders are anti-muslim? If anything they are interested in radical Islamism because it leads to instability and thus geopolitical opportunities. Assad's Syria, Saddam's Iraq, and Gaddafi's Libya are good examples of relatively stable and secular governments that were toppled by the West to give way to radical Islamist factions. It's their recipe for regional instability and geopolitical opportunity.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Modern Irak, Libya and Syria are artificial states created 100 years ago from the colonial agreements of Sykes-Picot after the destruction of the ottoman empire.
Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad are totalitarian dictators, and the only stability they ensure, is to impeach the sunni populations of these countries to built a stong and independent supranational islamic empire.
It's the popular arab uprising that toppled tunisian Ben Ali, syrian Bachar and egyptian Moubarak, the west only hijacks these revolutions with the same old "radical Islamic factions" rhetoric via their "moderate rebel" proxies.
The best example is the egyptian revolution : Moubarak dictator is pushed out by popular uprising, then muslim brotherhood chief Morsi is elected president by the will of the people, but will quickly be toppled in a military coup by Sisi, with the help of USA and their Saudi puppets.
The same thing is going on with Libya : Revolution kicks out Gaddafi, West hijacks it, and is now pushing to establish general Haftar as a new dictator.