Europe Under Attack: The Need to Change Middle East Policies

Paris suffered yet another Islamic terrorist attack.
François Hollande vowed to respond to this “declaration of war”. Many Western countries stood behind France and, as expected, there's a rapprochement towards Russia. Air-strikes against ISIS, in Raqqa, are increasing, but these are only an insufficient PR move (to show that something is being done). However, the West failed to announce one important step in the fight against Global Jihad: a change in their Middle East (ME) Policies.

Change ME Policies
There's a clear need for a change in policies regarding the Middle East. It's about time for France, for example, to realise that every time she empowers Arab political objectives, she suffers terrorist attacks:
There are no coincidences, therefore we reiterate the obvious: there's a clear relationship between the Palestinian Cause and Global Jihad. Denying this fact will only put more European lives in danger.
A couple of days prior to the attacks, Khaled Abu Toameh published an article urging the West to listen to Hamas:

“Hamas is openly stating that it will use any future Palestinian state as a launching pad to attack and eliminate Israel.
Hamas is not a small opposition party in the Palestinian territories that can be dismissed as a minor player. Hamas is a large Islamist movement, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood that controls the entire Gaza Strip with its population of 1.8 million Palestinians. Hamas, not much different from Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, has its own security forces, militias, weapons and government institutions.”

So when France and others say that they are fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda on one hand but on the other they support (both political and financially) a cause that is included in the Objectives of these terrorist organisations, they are only making a mockery of our Security.

Exert the Proper Pressure
The French leadership should also consider changing their stance towards the very nations that sponsor global jihad. The time has come for these countries to be held accountable for their ambitions. The first step would be to press wealthy Arab Nations to accept any and every Syrian migrant and refugee – after all the Quran commands them to take care of their brethren in need:

"Allah commands you to uphold justice and to do good to others and to give to the relatives." (Sura 16:90)

"(The true believers are those) in whose wealth there is a known right for the beggar and the destitute." (Sura 70:24-25)

The second step would be to openly admit that those sponsor-states are a problem the West needs to deal with. If there was once a political will to target Muamar Gadaffi when he sponsored several successful terrorist groups (including the IRA); why is there a resistance to publicly hold, for instance, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar liable – especially when they are losing energy-relevance?

Military operations and Holistic CT measures alone will not yield the proper fruits, we need a more concerted action:
  • Fierce domestic counter-terrorism operations (in other words: clean the house for more than 3 months)
  • A firm counter-ideology stance (or more plainly: calling things by their names and showing the courage to have a serious debate [free of political correctness] about Islam and Islamic Terrorism) and,
  • A temporary increased Military role in National Security (to not only serve as a deterrent but mainly because Urban Warfare has reached Europe). 
How much disruption must we all bear and how many more lives have to be taken, by ISIS et al, before our politicians do the right thing?

(Image: Cairo Looking Towards the Desert of Suez - David Roberts)


  1. I'm with you on this one. We can bomb those guys, we can do whatever but it won't work unless we send the right messages out there. If Arab countries continue to fund these guys and we all know who they are, and yet we keep on kissing their ass and giving them means to attack us, what the f**k are we doing after all? It doesn't make sense.

    1. Hi Jake :D!

      No, it doesn't to us; but for those who profit from it: it makes a lot of sense.
      Thank you for your great comment :D. This world is more crackers by the minute.


  2. I think that you are possibly attributing too much institutional/metaphysical rationale to the terrorism.
    On the institutional level, these people have no rationale- I don't think that they actually give a care about political concerns! They couldn't care less about those political issues.

    I think they care about personal concerns, like ideology, hatred, and jealousy, like you yourself mentioned recently. I just don't think that ISIS cares diddly squat about France's ME policy- my opinion.They care about asserting themselves against the "other."

    1. Hi Newton :D!

      I don't agree. Saying that terrorists have no rationale is underestimating the enemy. And they do have a rationale: the Quran and past Islamic Expansionism; in other words, their ideology. If they didn't care about political concerns they wouldn't carry out terrorist attacks (even you mentioned in your latest post that politics was the reason behind terrorism, when you quoted a professor, right?).

      Ideology, hatred and jealousy are used in their political struggle, whose main instrument is terror.
      ISIS militants are the footmen, meaning their job is to kill and plan to kill. The change in Western ME policy is intended for their sponsors, their enablers (both Islamic and non-Islamic alike).

      Politics is about perceptions and therefore we need to wage a perception warfare against ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Jamaat al-Muslimeen, Islamic Front, Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda and their State-Sponsors in a very effective way. The right words at the right time can be more effective than weapons, sometimes.

      We have tried everybody's way: it hasn't worked. So we need to try something that might.

      Newton, thank you so much for your great comment :D.


    2. I definitely agree that we need to wage a "perception war" against ISIS, since like I think the thoughtful ones are realizing and we have been talking about- ISIS is not a conventional army and they have to be fought unconventionally.

      True that it is easy to underestimate the enemy when saying that they have no rationale.

      True about the connection to politics. I would define politics as an interpersonal struggle though rather than a very rational concern. I think that politics itself is defined by interpersonal relations, if you know what I mean?

    3. Interpersonal relations meaning that the jealousy and hatred is somewhat of the end in itself rather than a means to an end. I see psychology everywhere. We are all people after all.

    4. Newton,

      "ISIS is not a conventional army and they have to be fought unconventionally."


      "I think that politics itself is defined by interpersonal relations, if you know what I mean?"

      Politics is the art of governing which involves interpersonal relations, of course, as it is done by individuals, yes.

      "Interpersonal relations meaning that the jealousy and hatred is somewhat of the end in itself rather than a means to an end."

      I would have to think about this more...


  3. Yes, we need a completely new change in the Middle East Policies of the rest of the world and India for one has come out of the closet. Much more needs to be done and I hope that the Paris event becomes the tipping point to enable some serious change.

    1. Hi Rummy :D!

      India is smart. I agree that there's still a lot more to be done.

      "I hope that the Paris event becomes the tipping point to enable some serious change."


      Rummy, thank you so much for your comment :D.


  4. Now that precious Paris was hit again it's a declaration of war? We have been at war against Islamic terror for a long long time! African countries, Israel, India, Lebanon, Libya etc see war everyday! But what really strikes my nerves are the people who justify these terrorists, are the politicians doing nothing! And by the way, has anyone seen Obama's despicable behaviour after the attacks to precious Paris?

    1. Hi Leila :D!

      So true. President Obama's despicable behaviour: what has he done now, in your view? I know his reactions to Islamic terror have been less than satisfactory but now that we know that intelligence reports have been sugar-coated, we have to wondered whether his reactions are based on doctored intelligence or not.

      Leila, thank you so much for your comment :D.


  5. As the saying goes, "It's déjà vu all over again". We reacted more or less the same after 9/11, and the situation just grows slowly worse.

    1. Hi Looney :D!

      You are quite right. So we definitely need a change, right?
      Thanks for your comment :D.


    2. Keeping in mind that if a solid majority want change, the modernist who created the current mess will immediately start offering up "hope and change" again, while they are already blaming others for their handiwork! Speaking of the French, I am a fan of Charles Martel and what he started to accomplish at the Battle of Tours. Not so much a fan of the pope worship that followed in the aftermath of Charlemagne and became the platform for an earlier generation of intellectualoids to wreck havoc.

      So yes, we do need change, but of the right sort!

  6. Good luck seeing them change their policies. These guys don't want a change, they don't want peace, none of it. Like Looney said this is all dejá vu and the situation just worsens by the day. But I'm glad somebody writes about it so bluntly.

    1. Hi Mike :D!

      Same reactions, dodging the same questions: none of it worked. We have tried their way, now a shift is desperately needed.
      Michael, thank you so much for your comment :D.



Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers