The Unacknowledged Contributors to Radical Islamic Extremism: Government Bureaucrats

It seems that most people have the view that the U.S. government isn’t doing enough to prevent Islamic extremist terrorist attacks, such as the one which occurred in Brussels. The government stenographers of the mainstream media, cable news and talk radio make sure that the only valid angle to the discussion is whatever promotes expanded U.S. government powers, better military strategy, better “intelligence,” and so on.

The U.S. Presidential candidates declare, “We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and defeat ISIS” with much confidence. That is, increase and intensify the same failed interventionist policies that got us here in the first place.

Yet, people continue to support and have faith in government bureaucrats who continue to act incompetently, such as in the FBI’s program of infiltrating U.S. mosques and intentionally motivating young Muslims to want to commit jihad violence, just so the FBI can thwart their own plots.

The truth is, government interventionism cannot “defeat radical Islamic terrorists and ISIS” or al Qaeda, or whatever the next terrorist organization will be called.

Alas, most Americans just seem to be fixated in the ideology of American Exceptionalism and the myth that more interventions and bombings by bureaucrats will protect them from terrorism.

No, government bureaucrats and their violent interventions are not only not the answer, but in fact, they are the cause of these problems.

For starters, the U.S. and Europe need to let go of this self-destructive gun control, “gun-free zone” mentality. For example, if just one or two people in the San Bernardino disability services center had been armed, they could have taken out the terrorist shooters at the beginning of their rampage, and saved lives.

Should the civilian population reconsider its allowing bureaucrats to be in control of weaponry in the first place? Government bureaucrats have shown themselves to be thoroughly irresponsible in the handling of guns and other armaments, especially regarding foreign policy.

In the current conflicts, some interventionists want the U.S. government to arm the Kurds. Others say, “Arm the Syrian rebels!” The answer is: The U.S. Bureaucracy should arm no one! But it also should not interfere with the civilians’ right to have whatever armaments they want to protect themselves from terrorists and other criminals.

And if you really wanted to prevent Islamic-based terrorist attacks, wouldn’t it help if the U.S. government stopped funding ISIS and al Qaeda?

Our bureaucrats need to stop providing terrorists with weapons, directly and indirectly, such as providing weapons to Syrian or Libyan rebels which then end up in the hands of Islamic extremists.

The U.S. central planning fanatics’ history of training Islamic radicals goes back to the 1980s to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

There are other examples of the U.S. government training Islamists, including right here in America with its training of Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK), as was revealed by Seymour Hersh.

But when it was revealed that the MeK had been giving large financial payments to and having meetings with powerful U.S. officials, such as John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean and Bill Richardson, the MeK was then removed from the U.S. government’s official list of designated terrorist organizations to avoid those officials themselves being charged with “providing material support” to terrorists. How ironic. There is a different justice system for government officials and for the rest of us, apparently.

Further collusions between U.S. and foreign bureaucrats include those of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband former President Bill Clinton through their private, non-profit organization, the Clinton Foundation. According to this article in the International Business Times, prior to Mrs. Clinton’s becoming Sec. of State, the repressive Saudi regime contributed over $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Also according to that article, several American defense contractors raked in $29 billion in sales of military hardware to Saudi Arabia. Apparently, the largest benefactor of that deal, Boeing, had contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation. “Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data.”

Saudi Arabia is an extremely barbaric and appallingly brutal regime. So State-sponsored terrorism and the savagery and barbarism of foreign governments against their own people does not seem to concern Hillary Clinton. And when the Saudi King Abdullah died, U.S. officials including John Kerry and Barack Obama actually expressed sympathies and praised the King. How could any rational person praise a repressive tyrant who crushes dissent?

And then there is the connection between the Saudis and the Bush family. Just what is it with these powerful and influential families such as the Bushes and the Clintons?

According to Washington’s Blog, the Saudis are a major sponsor of Islamic extremist terrorism. Washington’s Blog further describes the linkage between the Saudis and ISIS. A common connection is the Saudis and ISIS’s Sunni-based hatred of those of the Shia branch of Islam. The Saudis are also suspected of having played a role in the planning, funding and carrying out of the 9/11 attacks, as some officials and investigative reporters such as Sharyl Attkisson have been reporting. In this article, Washington’s Blog quotes former Sen. Bob Graham as stating, “I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia.” Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.

If this unwillingness to cut ties with repressive Islamic regimes is all about oil or natural gas, as Washington’s Blog has also pointed out, then there’s plenty of oil right here in the United States. In Montana and North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (and elsewhere in the U.S.). So there’s no rational need to continue this suppression of American’s energy independence. But who accuses government power-grabbers and left-wing environmentalists of being rational?

Now, a major and important grievance that the Muslim world has had toward the West is the occupation of Israel, formerly known as Palestine. The current state of Israel is an artificial State with a socialist government ruling over its people. It was founded by way of conquest by Western governments, not based on voluntary associations and property transfers or property rights but based on invasion and expulsion of many of its inhabitants.

If private individuals such as Sheldon Adelson and private organizations want to continue their relationships with Israelis they should be free to do so.

But if Americans really believed that the bureaucrats in Washington must obey the Constitution as well as act morally, then they must insist that tax-funded handouts to foreign governments be ended. Collectivist policies of government entanglements have removed from the people their freedom of association with foreigners while at the same time have wrought the worst outcomes.

Another issue is the immigration problem in Europe, which is the European governments’ own creation. Government bureaucrats should never have the authority or control over bringing immigrants into their territories, including refugees from war-torn areas. Those issues should always be left to private individuals and private organizations, and doing so voluntarily. Let private people vet prospective immigrants, and bring some in or exclude them.

“The current crisis in Europe involves government bureaucrats such as Angela Merkel bringing thousands of migrants into their countries and showering them with taxpayer-funded benefits, with total disregard for what the people in various particular towns have to say about it.

Again, let private citizens decide whether to provide food and housing to migrants, certainly not the government.

Meanwhile, the bureaucracy is letting in possible dangerous Islamic extremists, as well as dangerous criminals who have been assaulting, raping and murdering innocent people in Europe.”

And what, exactly, has been radicalizing the would-be Islamic terrorists? A major source of the radicalization and terror comes from the Saudi regime, as mentioned earlier. Those Middle Eastern and Asian “Islamic” republics which implement a most repressive Sharia Law have a lot of complicity in the violence-promoting radicalization.

Also, many of the perpetrators of Islamic-based violence have been young and were only very young children at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. If they were in Iraq, Afghanistan or other surrounding areas when George W. Bush’s military invaded and bombed those areas, then obviously their childhood years were already traumatized.

Imagine your little kids growing up in an area in which a foreign regime is bombing your city, your neighborhood. And with the Bush-Obama CIA drones constantly dropping bombs and murdering innocent people on a daily basis over there, can you imagine being a little kid seeing the next drone flying over and the terror he is feeling in anticipating the next bombings? And add to that the tyranny of criminal violence under the pretense of Sharia Law imposed by Islamic-based governments.

For decades the U.S. government has been invading and occupying those mainly Muslim countries, bombing and murdering their people. But who in his right mind would promote such immoral government-inflicted acts of violence against underdeveloped, primitive cultures, and not expect such invasions to further hinder those societies’ development, radicalize their people, and further provoke them to retaliate?

Is it just too difficult for Westerners to recognize the immorality of their own governments’ starting wars of aggression and murdering innocents? It sure seems so, as I hear on those talk shows and the daily newscasts.

Ideally, one hopes that some day people will finally understand the danger and impracticality of centralization and government monopolization of security, and change their ways and attitudes accordingly.