It's difficult, perhaps impossible, to acknowledge the problem of islamist extremism/terrorism, without encouraging Islamaphobia against the vast majority of peaceful Muslims and refugees. But it IS a problem, and to tackle it, shouldn't our governments be targeting the root causes of it?
The extreme islamist ideology, Wahabism, originates in Saudi Arabia (and Qatar). They export it, by funding/arming Jihadist groups (including Al Qaeda and ISIS), and by building and funding Wahabi Mosques around the world (including many in Europe). Note that most 9/11 attackers were from Saudi.
Another major root cause has been military interventionism in the Middle East by NATO countries, along with our Gulf allies (Saudi, Turkey, etc). Undoubtedly, this has destabilised the region, and caused mass suffering - during the first Gulf war, not only did many die during the conflict, but following it, over 500,000 children died as a result of cruel US sanctions. Some have estimated that 4 million Muslims in total have died since 1990 as a result of western intervention. These are crazy, unthinkable, Holocaust-esque figures.
Is it any wonder that this encouraged a deep hatred of the west from these Wahabi fundamentalists, and enabled them to easily recruit more fighters/followers? The resulting power vacuums from these interventions has allowed them to rise up and create their barbaric, west hating, 'Islamic' Caliphate.
Many in the west still genuinely believe that all these interventions have been for 'humanitarian' reasons, despite significant evidence that this is not the case. We were lied to about WMDs in Iraq. We were lied to about Gadafi's intentions in Benghazi, Libya. We were lied to about chemical weapons usage in Syria, (there is plenty of evidence that the 'rebels' had such weapons too, possibly supplied by Saudi).
Look up neoconservatism, and watch this video, filmed in 2007. All countries mentioned in this video have now been bombed by the US, (except for Iran...). Many argue that the destabilisation of the Middle East has been the plan of the US all along - in order to help protect Israel, open up markets, and access oil. Is there truth in this? Given all the interventions based on lies, it does seem likely that there were ulterior motives.
Under Obama, NATO created a failed state in Libya, previously the most successful country in Africa in terms of GDP. Wikileaks have revealed that the bombings had little to do with humanitarianism. I'm still researching Gadafi, but I think it likely that he was somewhat misrepresented by our media. (A former well respected German journalist, Dr Udo Ulfkoffe, has revealed that he was paid by intelligence services to write fabrictaed, inflammatory articles about Gadafi in the lead up to NATO's bombing of Libya). Gadafi certainly did a lot of 'good' for Libyans, providing free healthcare and education. Of course, he was authoritarian, and he did some 'bad' as well, but the west CLEARLY cannot take any moral high ground on doing 'bad' - 500,000 child deaths? And, as evidenced now, perhaps a degree of authoritarianism is, sadly, needed in the region, to quell the rise of islamism?
In Syria, the US are still arming so-called 'rebels', despite it being widely acknowledged, (outside of the mainstream media), for several years now that they are mostly Jihadists, and that there is barely any genuine pro-democracy/pro-human rights revolution movement. A genuine revolution requires significantly more of an uprising than what has been seen - it's an important fact that the (predominantly Sunni) Syrian army has largely remained loyal to the government, despite huge losses; and President Assad still has huge support. Saudi backed militants (amongst others) hijacked the peaceful protests from the outset, but this is rarely explained in the media; there are many other factors in this war that have been continuously ignored by most of western mainstream media.
Tulsi Gabbard, a US congresswoman, is currently trying to get a Bill through congress to 'Stop Arming Terrorists' in Syria. If the fact that congress require a Bill to 'stop the US arming TERRORISTS' doesn't make us all question US intentions in the Middle East, then nothing will. (Of course, the media are currently, and shamefully, doing their utmost to discredit Tulsi. Her Bill goes completely against their narrative).
Neoconservatism is basically USA/Western imperialism; we seem to think that we have authority on the best system for running a country, with our corporation influenced 'democracies', our huge inequality, our child poverty, our horrid treatment of 'whistleblowers' (aka 'traitors'), our homelessness, our institutional racism (how many unarmed black men were shot dead in the US last year?), our Guantamino Bay, our drone bombing of civilians, our expensive education and healthcare (US), our erosion of freedoms (internet surveillance), our corruption, our housing crisis, our loyalty to barbaric Saudi, our 'boom and bust' economies, etc.
It may be true that, overall, we have it best, but we certainly have no right to interfere in sovereign nations and inflict upon them our extremely imperfect neoliberal ideology. Genuine revolutions should be undertaken by those who dwell in the given country, as happened in Tunisia and Egypt during the Arab Spring.
Western destabilisation of the Middle East, and Saudi (et al) funded extremism terrorising the region, have directly led to the current refugee crisis. In order to help solve this crisis, we must tackle both these causes. We 'liberals' and 'lefties' have been focussed on welcoming refugees, and that's great, but it's both a short term solution, and is encouraging a reactionary rise of nationalism throughout the west, (Trump, UKIP, Le Pen).
One reason for the popularity of Trump (et al) is that he calls islamic extremism/terrorism what it is, unlike Obama, who never mentioned it, fearing he'd fuel Islamaphobia. We have had numerous islamist terrorist attacks, (and other crimes), in Europe recently, some carried out by so-called refugees, and most inspired by ISIS. Is it really that unreasonable for this to have scared people? Personally, I am totally against making a group of people suffer based on the actions of a minority; I am totally pro welcoming refugees into our country, particularly because they are largely coming from countries that have been destabilised, in part, by the actions of my government; but if there is any truth in what this former Syrian refugee is saying, is it not understandable for some of our citizens to be weary? Nationalism is generally considered a dirty word, but a desire to protect your homeland from any potential threat is only natural.
It would all be well and good for our leaders to stay quiet about it, (like Obama did), if they were actually tackling it at the root, but they haven't been, and this has led to immense frustration. Instead, our governments method for tackling islamist terrorism is to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and the wider region (?!); and to implement ever more powerful 'spying' laws - they can now look at pretty much anything we do online. There are some who believe this is a big conspiracy - allow terrorists into the country and use this as an excuse to crack down on our civil liberties. I'm not sure about this at all; at most, I'd say it is a convenient by product. But it certainly is suspicious, or just downright idiotic, that our governments sell weapons to these terrorist supporting countries, and never seem to tackle the root causes of these problems.
At the moment, everyone is focussed on Trump's actions now that he is President; the far bigger issue, and what we should be focussing on as well, is to try and understand what led to his popularity. There are various factors, but the refugee crisis and terror attacks in Europe are certainly significant. There has been scaremongering and exaggeration, yes - Trump did play hugely to peoples fears. And yes, the US have other, bigger threats (white supremacist terrorism, for example), but that doesn't mean that islamist terrorism isn't also a threat. Following the multiple attacks in Europe, it is very reasonable for US citizens to be fearful of the refugees. It may be discrimatory and illogical, but by implementing his 'Muslim Ban', (on 7 majority Muslim countries previously singled out by Obama's administration), Trump is ensuring that, having examined the vetting process himself, his administration will be accountable.
Furthermore, we simply will not be able to convince all westerners to live happily alongside those who are of a very different culture whilst we have such poverty and lack of opportunities in our current neoliberal society; taking this into account, hostility towards 'outsiders' is understandable. Ultimately, the most effective way to lessen nationalism, in my opinion, is via decent education and opportunities for all. Without this, a cohesive, multicultural society is unrealistic, and will only lead to more Trumps and Farages. I'm also not sure we have the infrastructure for such mass migration; not without significant investment, which we won't be seeing in the current times of austerity.
So, in my opinion, it is vital that we tackle the refugee crisis at the root. This means ensuring that, in four years time, the US doesn't end up with another neoconservative puppet like Obama, as president, who will continue meddling in foreign nations and causing mass displacement of people. We must focus on what is to come after Trump, by building a movement of genuine progressives who will put an end to military interventionism, focusing on diplomacy; we must acknowledge the threat of islamism whilst focussing on being extra friendly towards our Muslim neighbours, constantly addressing any Islamaphobia; and we must pressure our governments to do more to help those who have been left behind by decades of unfair globalisation, and neoliberalism.
We must pressure our governments to stop their neoconservative regime-change interventions, and we must pressure them to limit any relations, business, and arms sales with Saudi Arabia. We must also pressure our governments to drop all sanctions - futile sanctions are currently harming Syrian citizens, which will only encourage more anger towards the west, and the creation of evermore extremists. The cycle will continue. Quite adversely, we should pressure our governments to send significant aid to these countries, so that one day, the refugees who wish to, can return home.
