Lather, Rinse, Repeat

1) Bomb Muslim countries, kill residents, wreck their governments, create chaos and refugees.

2) Allow large numbers of immigrants from the countries we are wrecking into the US.

3) Force libertine American culture on them.

4) Watch terrorist acts erupt.

5) Repeat step one.

"This couldn't be anyone's plan!" you say. "It's insane."

Yes, it's insane... unless you have gotten wealthy off of the sales of weapons and security services, can afford pretty good security yourself, and will get even wealthier off of more such sales the more times we go around the loop!


  1. Omar Mateen's parents are from Afghanistan, not he himself.

    They came from there long before any American invasion happened there.

    1. I did not say he was from Afghanistan and I didn't say his parents were refugees from the war. I am describing a general pattern of events, not any one particular event.

    2. Here is a thing, though. Suggesting that Muslim acts of violence involve an element of revenge against what Americans have done in Muslim countries - still has one problem.

      Where are the terrorist attacks by Vietnamese, Koreans, central Americans, Japanese, Germans, and Italians against Americans in revenge for what happened before?

      US bombed several South East Asian countries. Several thousand South East Asian immigrants fled to the US afterwards. They had a libertine American culture forced on them. Why did they not behave the same way?

    3. Let's say I wake up one morning and decide to punch five of my neighbors in the nose. Four of them mutter and do nothing. But the fifth one punches me back.

      Because the first four did nothing, are we supposed to conclude that my punch had nothing to do with the return punch from the fifth one?

    4. What you say makes sense, but the trouble here is that there is simply too much reason to believe that Islamic terror attacks would have happened ANYWAY. Whether or not there was Western intervention.

      The French and the Belgians did not invade Muslim countries after 1960, bomb them, force refugees out of those countries, and engage in foreign intervention. They were still victims of Islamic terrorism. Same for Christians in Africa. Or Buddhists in South East Asia.

    5. You need to look back further to the period following World War II. Possibly earlier.

    6. Sam, so the Muslims in France and Belgium are taking revenge for 60+ years ago? Do you really believe that?

    7. Prateek, because some people attack others with no provocation, therefore provoking people never produces attacks?!

      Once, I was walking down the street, minding my own business, and I was attacked. Thus, no harm in attacking others whenever I want, because "attacks happen anyway"?

    8. Of course, you should not provoke people, and intervening the least possible is the best thing.

      But we are lying to ourselves if we think the radical Islamic terrorists will magically become angels if all US intervention ceased in the Middle East.

    9. "But we are lying to ourselves if we think the radical Islamic terrorists will magically become angels if all US intervention ceased in the Middle East."

      I don't know anyone who thinks that. The real difference seems to be in terms of how it would change the volume of attacks. (Neocons suggest if we stop intervening the volume would *increase*, whereas, say, Justin Raimondo thinks it would drop by a lot, although not to 0.)

  2. Starting to look like Omar was a regular at the club. A little bit of the ol' self hatred happen'n. It happens.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

Fiat Currency