“Indeed, it is quite clear that the majority agree with the proposition that terrorism has been grossly counterproductive.”

—Augustus Richard Norton

Expressions of grief and empathy for the victims of the coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris carried out by Daesh (ISIL, ISIS or IS) on Friday, November 13 have poured in from around the world. Meanwhile, the western world, in particular the United States, continues to show scant compassion for the Syrian refugees, who themselves are also the victims of U.S.-induced takfiri terror. These desperate Syrians can find no welcome in the country more responsible than any other for precipitating their plight. Instead, U.S. political elites have used the recent acts of terrorism to justify their refusal to admit refugees and bolster their intolerance toward Muslims.

26 state governors, mostly Republicans, have put Obama on notice that they will not accept Syrian refugees because one Syrian is alleged to have been involved in the Friday the 13th Daesh terrorist attacks in Paris. How many of the estimated 4.8 million refugees is the U.S. considering? A mere 10,000! This is down from U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s earlier pronouncement of accommodating 85,000.

Lebanon, whose population is about 4.5 million, hosts 1.1 million displaced Syrians or over 100 times the number of refugees that wealthy America is willing to accept. Using the same proportionality as beleaguered Lebanon, the rich United States should be willing to take in at least 7.8 million. However, the imperial instigator of the global crusade against terror, which has wreaked havoc throughout the Middle East, has only admitted 1.5 million refugees from the entire region since September 11, 2001.

Instead, U.S. leaders have decried that by accepting refugees from the war-torn Middle East, America would be putting its own citizens at risk of terrorist attacks. A typical example from the current deluge of anti-refugee alarmist rhetoric can be seen in the statement issued by New Mexico Republican Governor Susana Martinez. As a consequence of the Paris attacks, “The governor strongly opposes the Obama Administration’s plan to accept more Syrian refugees until there is a very clear plan in place to properly vet and place the refugees, and the voices of governors and the public can be heard.”

A recent report by the right-leaning Rand Corporation conceded, “Almost none of the major terrorist plots since 9/11 have involved refugees.” Yet according to U.S. presidential hopeful and Kentucky Republican senator Paul Rand, evidence to justify rejecting refugees from the Middle East abounds. “Some of the 65,000 that came from Iraq actually were trying to buy stinger missiles in my hometown in Kentucky,” said Rand, referring to a 2011 case of two Iraqi refugees who were convicted on terrorism charges based on evidence linking them to an unexploded roadside bomb in Iraq upon which one man’s fingerprint allegedly was found in 2005.

The case of the Iraqis is very interesting, because Mohanad Shareef Hammadi and Waad Ramadan Alwan, both former residents of Iraq, thought they were helping the Iraqi resistance fight against the illegal U.S. invasion and occupation of their country, but actually they had been lured into a U.S. Department of “Justice” sting operation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) initiated an investigation of Alwan in August of 2009 through a “confidential human source,” in other words an informant, but it was not until January, 2011 that Alwan “recruited” his cousin, Hammadi, to help him with loading the weapons and other materials, which, of course, were supplied by the FBI.

Curiously, both men pleaded guilty to the charges, and one suspects that their pleas may have been a result of pressure by U.S. prosecutors eager to obtain at least one post 9/11 terrorist conviction. For his part, Hammadi maintained that had he been aware of the possible life sentence, he would have never pleaded guilty, and that his lawyer, James Earhart, a former Kentucky Federal prosecutor, had told him that no American jury would find him innocent following the events of September 11, 2001. In their press release, the FBI stressed that no money, weapons or other material ever reached Al-Qaida of Iraq, and neither man was charged with plotting domestic terror attacks. Nevertheless, in an apparent effort to justify the entrapment operation, an FBI agent emphasized, “Protecting the United States from terrorist attacks remains the FBI’s top priority.”

As a result of the FBI sting operation that caught the two hapless Iraqi refugees in its nefarious web and the recent Daesh attacks in Paris, Senator Rand railed, “I don't think we should continue adding people to the rolls of those coming from the Middle East until we absolutely know who is in our country and what their intentions are.” To that end, he has introduced amendments to bills that, if passed, would block benefits for Syrian and other refugees coming from so-called high-risk countries, coded language for the Islamic countries in the Middle East. “The time has come to stop terrorists from walking in our front door,” explained Paul. “The Boston Marathon bombers were refugees, and numerous refugees from Iraq, including some living in my hometown, have attempted to commit terrorist attacks.”

Not to be outdone, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, who previously in an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcast Network openly admitted that he felt a “Muslim problem” exists in America, now has confided that the U.S. government will have to close down some mosques. “There’s absolutely no choice,” Trump declared, “Some really bad things are happening, and they are happening fast.”

Republican presidential contender and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who trails the regressive pack of commander-in-chief wannabees, sounded much like Rambo on steroids. “We should declare war and harness all of the power that the United States can bring to bear, both diplomatic and military of course, to be able to take out ISIS,” ranted Bush, outlining his all-out war plan. “You destroy ISIS. And then you build a coalition to replace this radical Islamic terrorist threat to our country and to Europe and to the region with something that is more peace loving.”

Perhaps the vilest and most demeaning words about the refugees fleeing the U.S.-induced violence in Syria came from former neurosurgeon and Republican presidential upstart Ben Carson. Employing the subterfuge of a canine metaphor to talk about the Syrian refugees, Carson declared, “If there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog.” Continuing his malicious metaphor, Carson added that “we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly.”

All of this anti-refugee sentiment is perfectly in line with the general predisposition of Americans, constantly reinforced by the media, to view Muslims through a distorted lens that focuses on the violence purportedly sanctioned by Islam while deflecting any perspective on the United States’ role in creating terrorist organizations like Daesh. A recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 56 percent of Americans feel “the values of Islam are at odds with American values and way of life.” Among white Evangelical Protestants, this figure increases to 73 percent and for Republicans, to 76 percent. Moreover, 63 percent of white working-class Americans “feel bothered when they come into contact with immigrants who do not speak English.” More disturbing is that these numbers have persistently increased since the 9/11 attacks, almost as if by design.

Likewise, despite a U.S. bombing campaign against Daesh that was initiated in June 2014, Seth Jones of the Rand Corporation testified before a U.S. congressional committee that “U.S.-led airstrikes have been insufficient to seriously degrade Da’ish in Syria,” and that “Jabhat al-Nusrah may be more capable now—with more fighters, funds, and territory—than at any time since its creation in 2011.” How could this be possible without an ongoing covert aid campaign by the U.S. to supply these terrorist organizations while deliberately avoiding inflicting serious harm to them as a result of airstrikes?

I do not know if there is a direct chain of command between the U.S. to the Daesh leadership or whether, as some claim, the terrorist organization has gone out of control. If such a chain of command between Washington and Daesh exists, no doubt within it, are multiple layers to ensure deniability. Nevertheless, the evidence strongly suggests that the U.S., at a minimum, has played a major role in creating the takfiri terrorist group and still supports it insofar as can be seen by the continuing aid given to “moderate rebels” in Syria, which somehow ultimately seems to find its way into the hands of Daesh.

Muslims living in the U. S. are justifiably concerned that the Paris attacks will boost Islamophobia, and would likely agree with Dr. Imam Achmat Salie, the creator of the Islamic Studies program at the University of Detroit Mercy, who wrote, “The relentless poison against Muslims and Islam since 9/11 by many in the mainstream media, has made America a dangerous place for Muslims.” Most Muslims would also agree with Professor Norton’s findings that terrorism is grossly counterproductive. But when the intent is to blaspheme Islam and defame Muslims—and that is precisely the aim of the rogue regime in Washington—terrorism remains a highly effective tactic.


***********
Highlight: “U.S. political elites used recent acts of terrorism to justify their refusal to admit refugees, bolster their intolerance toward Muslims.”
***********