It's an extremely complicated issue, one not given to easy generalities, which I admittedly often use.
Nonetheless, it seems apparent to me that since 1979, when Khomeini took over Iran and the embassy hostages were abducted, there has been a precipitous rise in Islamist terrorism which is positively correlated IMO with growing religious fanaticism. Many and varied reasons for this--the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, perceived American weakness, unlimited funding via oil revenues, systemic political and cultural failures in the Muslim lands, a religion which can be interpreted as justifying jihadi terrorism, anti-Semitism, rage, shame, poverty, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
And it seems to me that, while there is undoubtedly a majority of Muslims who are indeed moderate and peaceful, their voices are either not being heard or are simply not used to dampen the fanatics, a fact which IMO must be added to the huge list of Muslim failures; it might very well be the most significant. This failure of the voices of moderation is the critical issue, in my view, because the moderates by their inaction, by their faliure to confront those who are our sworn mortal enemies, have in effect become their fellow travelers. In my mind, they share some level of moral responsibility for terrorism.
It's a matter of courage and conviction, of standing up for what's right. Why don't we hear a thunderous protest whenever some addled teenager is conned into blowing himself up at a pizzeria? Why are't there Muslims with placards and protests at the sidewalk in front of the more radical imams? Why are the moderates so passive? And please don't tell me that Iraq is the problem--the serious terrorism began decades before Iraq.
So, yes, I agree with your analysis but I don't think you've taken it far enough. |
