Islamic Terrorism is more dangerous than the Communism of the last Century
Islamic Terrorism is more dangerous than the Communism of the last Century
December 22, 2005
A friend of mine has forwarded an article from Washington post written by Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski the renown American foreign policy expert, and the theme of his article was: Is the Communism and Islamic terrorism has anything in common? More precisely, he has stated in his article with firm voice that the �Islamic terrorists are much weaker than communism� hence the west should not take Islamic terrorists so seriously!
Quite frankly, I do not agree with Mr. Brzezinski�s opinion on several important points of his article which has delved the most important political issues of this 21st century. Mr. Brzezinski is a famous USforeign policy expert and was the security advisor to the American President Jimmy Carter. He was perhaps one of the key persons responsible for creating Osama Bin Laden (the Frankenstein of American foreign politics) in the 80�s by his relentless campaign and ardently teaching of Islamic jihad. By the help of Saudi Islamic crooks he recruited thousands of young Arab jihadis, gave them jihadi training, weapons, money and other logistic supports to fight the Communism (USSR). And now he thinks Islamic terrorism is not as dangerous as Communism of the past. It is only out of ignorance of Islamic zealotry that Mr. Brzezinski�s is making such absurd comments. However, with due respect to Mr. Brezezinski below are my comments against his opinions.
In my view, if Communism was a thousand pounds Gorilla; then the Islamic terrorism is a ten thousand pounds Gorilla.Communism might have had Nukes to destroy the entire planet; but the communists did not dare to even touch one single hair of America(anywhere in the whole world) during 50 years of cold war because it feared retaliation. On the other hand, these devilish ideologically brainwashed Islamic terrorists have already destroyed over a dozen of American Embassies/installations overseas, have killed many hundreds of American abroad, have destroyed the American warships and the American Army installations in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; (By the way all these happened during the reign of two Democratic Presidents: Carter and Clinton) and finally have destroyed the pride of America WTC, and the Pentagon right here in the soil of America�killing over three thousand innocent Americans.
All the above terrorisms happened before the Iraq war. For fifty years Communism made thousands of Nukes but did not have a single suicide bomber. The Islamic terrorism counts with thousands of suicide bombers which are more practical and more efficient than Nukes.
These deadly human bombs are indiscriminately blasting and killing innocent civilians throughout the world. Can Mr. Brzezinski still claim that Communism was stronger than Islamic terrorism? Mr. Brezezinski must be kidding! [Was the mighty communism at all capable of giving such apocalyptic scenery (above) of the destruction of American property right in the heart of America ? ]
Just to refute Mr. Brzezinski�s inaccurate comparison of communism with Islamic terrorism, let me cite a few unparallel examples: To quell the monster of Islamic terrorism , America has already fought and still is fighting two major wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) spending tens of thousands of human lives and hundreds of billions of dollars as well; overhauled many US administrative strategies; created a brand newHomeland Security Department, many other security arrangements worldwide, federal Air marshal etc. spending hundreds of billions of dollars. To handle the communist threat America did not have to do a fraction of that. Yet the control of Islamic terrorism is not in the sight at all.
Like many other (Democrats and leftists) naive Americans, Mr. Brzezinski does not know Islam not the zealotry of its followers. He thing just because the Islamic terrorists do not have a strong organization as the communists did, they are weak, vulnerable and are not a great threat! Fact is, these Islamic terrorists actually do not have any home or country or any geographical boundary. They are everywhere all over the world including America , and they are like shadow which can not be seen before they blast their deadly bombs. Islamic terrorists have one common home which is the religion of Islam and they get their instructions from the Quran. They are brainwashed and solidly bonded by this deadly ideology. Islamic terrorists are more dangerous and more powerful because of their fanatical faith and because they have no home and can�t be targeted, than the communist that had an identifiable home and organization having only a loosely bonded political theme. Had the Islamic terrorists got any particular home or geographical identity, then it would have been very easy for a super power like America to destroy it completely. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Islamic terrorism.
Like Mr. Brzezinski, President George Bush and British PM Tony Blair also thought initially that Islam/religion was not the factor, or those terrorists are not bonded with the Islamic ideology. They both initially said �Islam is peace�. But now with time they both have been educated well about this menacing threat. Now they are uttering the correct adjectives about these Islamic terrorists. The �murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals�, �Islamic radicalism,� �militant jihadism�, �Islamofascism�, or �Islamic
Caliphate� are the right words for President Bush and PM Blair to use for describing Islamic terrorists. Before, they both used to tell all wrong things about the Islamic terrorists. Because, it has been proven time and again by actions and figures that Islamic terrorism is indeed connected and greatly emboldened by the murderous ideology of Islam.
Mr. Brzezinski�s another na�ve theory is that�it�s the �poverty and oppression� that is creating suicide bombers, and not Islam. He is wrong here too. So far Islamists blasted hundreds of suicide bombs. Not a single case was proven that they did it because of oppressions. I have followed every news about these suicide bombers, and read several dozens of articles about those captured would be suicide bombers (around the world) who were interviewed by various reporters. Almost all of them vividly and proudly told the reporters that they have done it by religious motivations/convictions, and wanted to become martyrs. None of them said that they did it because of any oppression or due to poverty. They all wanted to enter Islamic lustful heaven by killing innocent human beings. All those Nineteen 9/11 terrorists who destroyed WTC and Pentagon were from affluent rich and educated Arab families, and they were all University graduates. They all left the messages behind that they did it to go to heaven to enjoy 72 virgin houris. Please mind that poverty also do exist in India ,China , and many other countries of Africa and Asia . Those poor Hindus, poor Buddhists, or poor Christians, Animists or poor Pagans do not commit suicide bombings to kill kaffirs. Only Muslims do it. Therefore, it is Islam (religion) the cause, and not any poverty or oppressions. Communism could not create a single suicide bomber to kill any capitalists. But the deadly ideology of Islam can create tens of thousands of suicide bombers world wide.
Please consider the case of Bangladesh today. In Bangladesh Islamic terrorist are blasting deadly bombs everywhere killing innocent peoples almost on daily basis. All those involved in these killings are Islamists (Madrassa students, Madrassa teachers, muftis, maoulanas, Imams, etc.). The poor Bengalis beggars will never commit suicide to kill people even if the beggars are starving for several weeks, unless they are fanatically brainwashed by heavenly bait of Islam. Mind you no human wants to die even for billion dollars; but he will die for a cause.
It�s absolutely incorrect to claim that major religious figures condemned Islamic terrorism. Pope may have done it but not grand mufti of Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic big mullah. Not even 2% Islamic mullahs of the entire world did condemn Islamic terrorism. Their condemnation has the deceitful tactics of fooling the western world. They may condemn terrorism (only externally), but never condemn jihadist Islamists. Actually they call it jihad; how they can condemn jihad? Could they go against the Quran? Virtually all the Muslims from Madrassas, Mosques, Islamic centers vehemently support Osama bin Laden and his Islamic terrorist�s gang whole heartedly. Even the so called moderate or ignorant Muslims do support (clandestinely) Osama�s grand mission of fighting the west.
Mr. Brzezinski�s analogy of IRA terrorism with Islamic terrorism is another sign of naivety and lack of understanding of the real problem of Islamic terrorism. IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland or Basque terrorism in Spain is purely local in nature and their struggle is not to establish or safeguard Christianity or any other religion. IRA or Basque people never blasted their bombs in Indonesia , Philipine, Tunesia or inAmerica . Most importantly, IRA and Basque terrorists did not commit suicide bombings. Islamic terrorists are blasting suicide bombs all over the world. What kind of analogy is it?
This Islamic utopia was started after the rise of Islamic regime in Iranafter the fall of the Shah of Iran. Osama bin Laden saw the victory overUSSR in Afghan war as the victory of Islam over the enemy of Islam�the Russian infidels. He has definitely considered it as the victory of Islam by the Allah�s divine inspirational assistance and never considered American superior weapons/technology any real factor for this victory over Russian Communists. Apparently this was the pivotal spiritually inspirational mindset of Osama bin Laden (according to his famous �fatwa of Osama bin Laden� published after 9/11) which has aroused the divine passions of his chosen al-Qaeda jihadis with the dream of establishing an Islamic Caliphate throughout the entire world, as per the dictum of holy Qur�an.
Therefore, prime and ultimate driving force behind the present Islamic terrorist�s utopia is Islam and religious zeal, and not the poverty. Unless the west understands the ultimate cause of this madness, in way it can defeat this terrorist monster. This is not the time of critiquing or debating why America has gone to Iraq . This is the time to unite and find the way to win this Iraq war�which will leave a strong messageto those Islamic jihadis al Qaeda, which will definitely discourage future recruits of jihadis and will help evaporate their dream of establishing Islamic Caliphate.
The dangerous terrorist ideology must be fought in two fronts:Militarily and ideologically. West must investigate what lies in Islam/Quran that can very easily turn a simple human into a deadly bomb. Mr. Brezezinski�s absurd theory will do no good. Cutting and running from Iraq war leaving the job unfinished will only give the jubilant inspirations to those jihadis which will embolden their Islamic zeal even further to recruit more jihadis to stage more dangerous 9/11 than the one they have already staged in 2001.
If the President Bush listens to Mr. Brzezinski�s absurd theme and withdraws from Iraq without finishing the job, this shortsightedness ofAmerica will leave a dangerous message to those jihadis dreamers. Islamists will declare that they have defeated USSR (one super power) in Afghanistan , and defeated the biggest super power America in Iraq .And credit all that to the divine help from Allah. This will be a devastating defeat for the west and will invite catastrophic terrorisms and untold devastations in the entire western world including America . There will be no power on earth to stop Islamic/jihadis human bombs which will be relentlessly blasting bombs everywhere in the west with much Islamic zeal and a great passion of establishing Islamic caliphate as per Quranic predications by Allah. This will lead to the third world war which may destroy our entire civilization. 
Do These Two Have Anything in Common?
President Bush has equated Islamic radicalism with communism. Is the comparison sound? Is it wise?
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, December 4, 2005; B02
In a series of recent speeches to the American people, President Bush has sought to equate the current terrorist threat with the 20th-century menace of communist totalitarianism. His case is that the terrorist challenge is global in scope, “evil” in nature, ruthless toward its foes, and eager to control every aspect of life and thought. Thus, he argues, the battle against terrorism demands nothing “less than a complete victory.”
In making this case, the president has repeatedly invoked the adjective “Islamic” when referring to terrorism and he has compared the “murderous ideology of Islamic radicalism” to the ideology of communism.
Is the president historically right in his diagnosis of the allegedly similar dangers posed by Islamic extremism and by totalitarian communism? The differences between the two may be more telling than their similarities. And is he wise to be expounding such a thesis?
By asserting that Islamic extremism, “like the ideology of communism . . . is the great challenge of our new century,” Bush is implicitly elevating Osama bin Laden’s stature and historic significance to the level of figures such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao. And that suggests, in turn, that the fugitive Saudi dissident hiding in some cave (or perhaps even deceased) has been articulating a doctrine of universal significance. Underlying the president’s analogy is the proposition that bin Laden’s “jihad” has the potential for dominating the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions of people across national and even religious boundaries. That is quite a compliment to bin Laden, but it isn’t justified. The “Islamic” jihad is, at best, a fragmented and limited movement that hardly resonates in most of the world.
Communism, by comparison, undeniably had worldwide appeal. By the 1950s, there was hardly a country in the world without an active communist movement or conspiracy, irrespective of whether the country was predominantly Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist or Confucian. In some countries, such as Russia and China, the communist movement was the largest political formation, dominating intellectual discourse; in democratic countries, such as Italy and France, it vied for political power in open elections.
In response to the dislocations and injustices precipitated by the Industrial Revolution, communism offered a vision of a perfectly just society. To be sure, that vision was false and was used to justify violence that eventually led directly to the Soviet gulag, Chinese labor and “reeducation” camps, and other human rights abuses. Nonetheless, for a while, communism’s definition of the future bolstered its cross-cultural appeal.
In addition, the intellectual and political challenge of the communist ideology was backed by enormous military power. The Soviet Union possessed a huge nuclear arsenal, capable of launching in the course of a few minutes a massive atomic attack on America. Within a few hours, upwards of 120 million Americans and Soviets could have been dead in an apocalyptic mutual cross-fire. That was the horrible reality.
Contemporary terrorism — though nasty and criminal, whether Islamic or otherwise — has no such political reach and no such physical capability. Its appeal is limited; it offers no answers to the novel dilemmas of modernization and globalization. To the extent that it can be said to possess an “ideology,” it is a strange blend of fatalism and nihilism. In al Qaeda’s case, it is actively supported by relatively isolated groupings, and its actions have been condemned without exception by all major religious figures, from the pope to the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia.
Its power is circumscribed, too. It still relies largely on familiar tools of violence. Unlike communist totalitarian regimes, al Qaeda does not use terror as an organizing tool but rather, because of its own organizational weakness, as a disruptive tactic. Its members are bound together by this tactic, not by an ideology. Ultimately, al Qaeda or some related terrorist group may acquire truly destructive power, but one should not confuse potentiality with actuality.
But in the meantime, is Bush smart to be making this comparison?
The analogy to communism may have some short-term political benefit, for it can rekindle the fears of the past while casting the president in the mold of the historic victors of the Cold War, from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan. But the propagation of fear also has a major downside: It can produce a nation driven by fear, lacking in self-confidence and thus less likely to inspire trust among America’s allies, including Muslim ones, whose support is needed for an effective and intelligent response to the terrorist phenomenon.
It is particularly troubling that Bush has also relied heavily in his recent speeches on what to many Muslims is bound to sound like Islamophobic language. His speeches, though occasionally containing disclaimers that he is not speaking of Islam as a whole, have been replete with references to “the murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals,” “Islamic radicalism,” “militant jihadism,” “Islamofascism” or “Islamic Caliphate.”
Such phraseology can have unintended consequences. Instead of mobilizing moderate Muslims to stand by our side, the repetitive refrain about Islamic terrorism may not only offend moderate Muslims but could eventually contribute to a perception that the campaign against terrorism is also a campaign against Islam as a whole. They may note that the United States, in condemning IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland or Basque terrorism in Spain, does not describe it as “Catholic terrorism,” a phrase that Catholics around the world would likely find offensive.
Bush’s recent speeches also stand in sharp contrast to his mid-September address to the United Nations, in which he not only refrained entirely from labeling terrorism in any religious terms but also spoke thoughtfully of social “anger and despair” as contributing to the rise of terrorism. He stressed that the war against terrorism “will not be won by force alone. . . . We must change the conditions that allow terrorists to flourish and recruit.” By contrast, Bush recently has dismissed altogether the notion that there could be any “set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed” in order to eliminate the sources of terrorism.
It should be cause for concern to U.S. policymakers that only one major foreign statesman comes close to emulating Bush’s rhetorical emphasis on the Islamic aspects of the current terrorist threat, and that is Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin has deliberately seized upon the theme of Islamic terrorism to justify his relentless war against the Chechens’ aspirations for self-determination. That war has the dangerous effect of generating rising tensions with Russia’s sizable Muslim population.
It certainly is not in the United States’s interest, especially in the Middle East, to prompt a fusion of Muslim political resentments against America with a wider and stronger sense of Islamic religious identity. When the president talks of Iraq as “the central front” in the war against Islamic terrorism, he links Iraqi and Arab anti-American nationalism with outraged Muslim religious feelings, thereby reinforcing the case for bin Laden’s claim that the struggle is, indeed, against “the crusaders.”
That fusion could endow terrorism with fanatical intensity, compensating for the weakness that it suffers in comparison to the organizational and military threat posed earlier by communism. Indeed, the limitations of al Qaeda and similar organizations could change, especially if the president fails to pursue policies that aim at isolating terrorist groups as well as undercutting their recruitment campaigns.
Unfortunately, the military character of our presence in the Middle East may be helping to bring this change about. Robert A. Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, has analyzed the motivations of contemporary suicide-attackers. He demonstrates that in the majority of cases, the attackers’ basic impulse has been hostility toward foreign invaders, and he concluded a recent TV interview by observing that “the longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11.”
America would be better served if Bush avoided semantic traps that create uncertainty about our true motives or fuel the worst suspicions regarding U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Neither Islamophobic terminology nor evocations of the victorious struggle with communism help generate a better public understanding of what policies are needed in order to pacify the Middle East and to speed the fading away of terrorism, whose origins lie mostly in that region of the world. Americans need to hear more of what Bush was saying not long ago to the United Nations and less of what he has been propagating lately in the United States.
Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. He is a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a trustee of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 
 Islam more sinister than Communism: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/skm51222.htm
 Islamic Radicalism and Communism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201308_pf.html