Are we to blame?
One classic line you will hear from liberals every time there is a Islamist terrorist outrage is the ‘we are to blame’ line. After-all, they say, did we not bomb Iraq and kill many civilians? Are we not involved in Syria? Excetera, Excetera.
It is easy to dismiss this whinnying and on one level it should be dismissed because this is not pure explanation but a thiny-veiled attempt at justification. The spectacle of liberals drawing a moral equivalence between the senseless slaughtering of innocent children at a pop concert and those caught in the middle of an armed conflict is truly sickening. It introduces the possibility that the actions of these barbarians has some kind of moral and intellectual legitimacy. In psychology this tactic is called projection, because liberalism is unwilling to confront and blame Islam, as it should, it projects the guilt of Islam elsewhere.
However, on another level, I would like us to consider a radical proposal, liberals have a point. The fact is that the foreign policy pursued by Western governments is to blame for the rise of ISIS and of Islamanism in general. Western governments, of all hues, have consistently backed Saudi Arabia and continue to do so not just through the arms trade and the money we hand to them for their oil but we have pursued actions in direct support of the Saudi dream of finally settling the civil war within Islam and its drive towards a Sunni Caliphate.
Essentially, the Sunni/Shia civil war has been rumbling on since the death of the So-called Prophet, Mohammed, the spiritual founder of Islam and is a battle over who was his legitimate successor. Sunnis believe that Mohammed’s friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, was his legitimate successor while Shias feel that dubious honour belongs to Mohammed’s son-in-law, Ali. Shias therefore maintain that only men from Ali’s bloodline can lead Muslims while Sunnis maintain that they are the legitimate heirs of Mohammed due to their rigid adherence to his teachings.
Western governments have clearly chosen to side with the Sunni claim intoxicated to the point of treason agianst their own people as they are by the wine of free flowing oil and money. Our intervention in Iraq, for example, was framed not by securing its oil, the fact is that the long war of attrition with Saddam Hussein and subsequent civil war has decimated Iraqs oil producing capacity especially coming after his long war with Iran, but with securing the Saudi border which looked a little prone after Saddam rolled his tanks into Kuwait. Had Saddam never bothered with Kuwait and kept on hammering Iran he would have been left in place.
Similarly with Syria. Bashar Al Assad is a key ally of Iran. Currently, the Saudis are busy trying to knock Iran off-balance in Yemen and if they are successful, and Assad is removed in Syria, Iran will suddenly become exceptionally vulnerable. Incidentally, who played a key role in destabilising the Assad regime? It was ISIS, the brought and paid for paramilitary wing of the House of Saud.
The West’s support of Saudi Caliphate ambitions are short-sighted, we are paying the price in the blood of our children, our delusional leaders think they are in control when they clearly are not. If they are in control why do our children die in ISIS inspired bloodbaths? They hope that the tensions between the Sunni theocracies, as evidenced recently by the spat with Qatar, which despite being Sunni also faces towards Iran, will keep them divided and weak but this is naive to the point of conspiratorial stupidity. Donald Trump, who promised to stand up for America is looking increasingly like another Saudi puppet.
Imagine, if you will, an enfeebled and ultimately defeated Iran, a Saudi Caliphate will become a reality, but it will have been brought through the treason of our leaders and with the lives of our citizens.