The French Intifada, 9/11 and the global Jihad

First, an introduction

I know I rarely write in this section, and I don't think I've ever started a thread here. The reasons are that I'm a skeptic. I don't usually believe in conspiracy theories. I see most of them as too wacko and non-realistic, while others as simply complicating a simple, easy to explain with no need of conspiracy, events.
So the following essay is written by a skeptic. It is also written by a soldier, and by a citizen of country which 20% of it's population adhere Islam as their religion, most of them religious.
The author of this essay is also a secular, liberal Jew, who supports the legalization of marijuana in his country, supports full women and gay rights, support strong welfare system, speaks Esperanto (which means that he has a strong respect for different cultures than his own), supports and experienced in using alternative fuels and is an animal lover (I have a dog and six cats).
On the other hand, the author supports the war on terrorism (I actually think it should be expanded to include other countries), is against his country's immidiete redrawal from the disputed territories (West Bank and Gaza), and is all for free market, against Communism and Socialism, and believe that Palestinian terrorism aspire to destroy Israel, and originate from Nazi-like anti-Semitism, rather than to create a Palestinian State.

So after I've introduced myself and you all know what's my background is, let's get going with the essay itself, alrighty?

The 20th century - the worst century Islam had

If we check how Islam evolved since it's creation in the 7th century in the sands of the Arabian peninsula, we can see that the muslim world was pretty much successful, and on a steady rise since it's birth.
In the 8th century, less than 100 years after Mohammed lectured few listeners in Medina, the Muslim world spread from Arabia to the southern borders of France.
In the 13th century, when the Christians began their re-conquest of Spain, the Muslims managed to completely assimilate the great Persian Empire. Even the Mongols, which sacked Baghdad, later on converted to their victim's religion.
On the 15th century, when Iberia was lost, another great Islamic power - the Ottoman Turks, sacked Byzantium, the capital of Orthodox Christianity, and within a century their armies flying the crescent would siege Vienna.
Even in the 19th century, when the Ottomans were on retreat from Europe and North Africa, Islam would finally take Albania, and would flourish in East Asia.
On the other hand, the beginning of the 20th century will forsee the demise of Islamic world as a great power to reckon from, with the last Muslim empire (the Ottoman Empire) becoming a secular republic, with the Arab world splitted into 22 states often at war with eachother and governed by mostly anti-religious, socialist regimes, and with the east and central asia becoming Communist and thus making it less religious. Add to that the 3 failed attempt by the Arab world, viewed by many as the heart of the muslim world, to destroy a small country even when it is fully united behind the task, and you can see my point.
The "muslim world" has laregly become a synonym to the "Third world", where poverty, illteracy, and violence triumpth.
Thus, it's quite clear why the past century was probably the worst century Islam had ever.

A new hope - the rise of Islamism in the Arab world and the ongoing religions shift

In the last 25 years, however, the first signs of a coming change, or a new hope for the islamic world, has began to develop.
First was the rise of Islamism as an alternative to Arab Socialism in the late 1970s. The Islamic revolution in Iran, the assasination of Anwar Saddat in Egypt (the president who signed a peace treaty with Israel), and the rise of Islamic terrorism in the Arab world (especially in countries such as Syria, Iraq and Egypt - considered the most important Arab countries in terms of military, economic, academic and cultural power).
Hamas and Islamic Jihad enetered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which was largely lead by the secular, socialist, PLO earlier.

Second, you had the spread of socialism, atheism and communism in Europe - the heartland of Christianity. With it, you now had an increasingly atheist, small family society, where birth rates were below the required 2.1 child per family to keep the population from decreasing.

Third, the end of European colonialism causesd the need of cheap labour in the motherlands itself - companies had to relocate to their country's homeland, and with that relocation, came the wave of immigrants from these past colonies. Europe also needed alot of cheap labours to rebuild itself after WW2, and so those natives in those North African ex-colonies were needed now more than ever.

Fourth, the end of Communism in the USSR also marked the end of Communsim in many African countries (where Islam is widespread), the end of Communism in central Asia, and the final death blow for the popularity of Arab Socialism in the Arab world.
It also meant that the traditional alliance with the West against the infidel, atheist Communists has come to end.

The seeds of Islam's re-emergence as an enemy of the West has been laid out, with few conflicts in the 1990s showing signs of the yet to come.

The 1990s and the beginning of a new world order

With the end of the Cold War, the future seemed bright and merry. The threat of holocaustal nuclear war was no longer over our heads, atheism made religious wars unlikely in the forseeble future, and the end of history was no longer part of utopian science fiction. Or was it?
The first war of the 1990s was not of the West against some remote communist area, but against an Arab dictator. Then again the next one would be of the US in Somalia. Islamic terrorism hit France in 1995. The first Chechen war began the same year also, and the wars in Yugoslavia, where Muslims and Christians would fight to the brink of genocide, as well.
Then you had the 1993 WTC failed attacks, the introduction of islamic suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the religious islamist Hamas, and the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The map of global conflicts would no longer be shaped by the world powers, but by continued clashes between different cultures, with the majority of them, and the most serious of them, involving Islam and Islamist groups.
Some even coined the term "Clash of Civilizations", to describe the newly developing conflict.

The 21st century - 9/11 and Al-Qaeda: and so the battle begins... Or does it?

The new millenium began with new hopes. Sure, you had few conflicts around the world, but nothing too serious to threat world peace. The accelerated advance in science and medicine, the few peace processes in the middle east, the end of the wars in Yugoslavia, etc.
But mankind would soon realise this was only the calm before the storm.
In Septemeber of 2000, a renewed violence in the Middle East would begin.
Soon after, in September of 2001, the entire world was shocked as the sole super power, the United States, would be attacked for the first time since 1812 by and Islamist group known as Al-Qaeda. 9/11 seem to have started a chain of event throughout the world, with mega-terror attacks against non-muslims carried on by orgnizations connected to Al-Qaeda. Indonesia, the UK, Spain, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Russia, India, Jordan, Suadi Arabia - all these countries have been hit by Al-Qaeda in series of attacks.
Several countries have allied themselves with the US in a war against terrorism, which is currently on going in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it's outcome are yet to be revealed.
Yet what was the purpose of Al-Qaeda's attack against the US?
Surely they must realise that it's a futile war, that few clansmen with old Kalaschnikovs can't possibly defeat the entire world.

Al-Qaeda's goal - World Domination by 2020

We were informed, not long ago, about what is the goal of Al-Qaeda. Put it simple, world domination by 2020. Seemed too much "pinky and the brain"? True, but then again, only 60 years ago have we fought against an enemy which sought the same goal.
Let's seriously consider their goal for a moment.
How can they possibly think of pulling this thing off?
They would need millions of people, not to say top weapons and military superiority against, well, almost everyone if they wanna do that.
Or do they?

It seems that 9/11 actually worked against their goal: yeah, they managed to kill few inflidels, but they don't have to power to challange the US yet, and without the US out of the picture, you can't claim world domination, right?

Well, after serious thought and analyzing the situation, it seems Al-Qaeda's strategy is almost perfect in anyway. It isn't that they miscalculated and acted too soon, it's that we miscalculated them as thought of them as merely barbarians, ignoring the big picture, just as the ancient Romans ignored the Germanic tribes which later on sacked Rome and brought an end to the Roman Empire.
What if by pulling off 9/11, Al-Qaeda didn't actually mean to start a war against the US, but merely done that as a deversion tactic, as a smoke screen to it's true intention, to it's true goal. No, not conquering North America; nor getting US soldiers out of Suadi Arabia. Their real target lies in the other side of the atlantic: Europe.
Yep, good 'ol non-colonial, equality for it's muslim minorities' seeking, and pretty much fed up with American hegemony Europe.
The theory which I present is this:
Al-Qaeda, knowing how Europe, which was in the shadow of the US for the past 50 years, have become increasingly intolerent to the US bossying the world like the Cold War was still going on, ignoring the EU as a new power player.
They know how the US is unpopular in most of continental western Europe (France, Germany, Spain), how it is criticised for it's capitalism, for it's lack of enviromentalism, for it's religiousness, and for it's seemingly arrogance.
Many Europeans have already criticised the need of American troops in Europe, in South Asia and in the Middle East.
Al-Qaeda knew that by attacking the US, it will bring full scale invasion of American and pro-American militaries into the Middle-East, thus bringing European anti-Americanism into new heights, making European governments needing to take opposite actions to those of the US if they want to be popular by the European voter.
Being that France was already known for it's opposition to American policies in the West, an attack on the US prompting the entire war on terrorism was a superb choice by Al-Qaeda: France also happen to be the country with the largest muslim minority.
By causing a split in the West between American-UK lead camp supporting the war on terrorism and the Franco-German camp against it, Al-Qaeda got just what it asked for:
France can't be too anti-Muslim\Arab, because it is against US campaigns in muslim territories.
This means Muslims, while beginning to be seen by many in France as an invaders, outsiders, in the early 2000s, are at the same time sympathized by French intellectuals as victims of American imperialism. Any outright anti-Arab move by the French government would be seen as being pro-American.
The ground was now set for a small test, a show of the muscles of Islam in Europe. Thus, an uprise, an "intifada", in France, was planned. If many thought the events which began in the last days of October were spontanious outbreak of frustration of the poor, it is now quite obvious that such wide-scale violence was pre-planned. A "factory" for molotov cocktails was even found in a city in southern France.
And if that wasn't enough - the rioters themselves explained in numerious occasions that they are rioting in the name of islamism, that "it's their land", etc.
It is quite common knowledge that radical islam in France is being financed and spread by organizations related to Al-Qaeda.
And just as Al-Qaeda hoped, the riots were strangely enough being taken care with easy hand by French authorities.
Even in the 1968 student riots, when the rioters didn't use live ammunition, the French government called the military in.
In these riots, the rioters fired with live ammunition on police forces, critically injuring two policemen, and killing an innocent civilian and setting on fire a disabled woman.
Yet all the French did was to cover this up and act as if it's nothing to worry about. The French media was told to stop covering the story, and French intellectuals actually blamed French discrimination for the riots.
Thus, the experiment of Al-Qaeda was 100% successful.

It has been proved that even when they number 10% of the population, and even when only few thusands are taking actions, muslims can stop the country from running.
With the continued immigration of Muslims to France, Netherlands, Denamrk and Belgium, and with the negative population growth rates of the non-muslims in these countries, the day when France will be 20% is not far off. The Benelux (Belgium and the Netherlands) countries are just behind.
And with those countries "forgiving" for the latest islamist violence, it's quite obvious that the battle is pretty much lost. While it might not happen in 10 or 20 years, these countries are destined to become less-European and more Islamic.

Thus, Al-Qaeda's goal is being achieved as we speak.

9/11 wasn't about the US at all, but all about Europe. The latest rioting confirms this.

Intifada is a Palestinian phenomenon caused by Israeli occupation; no such occupation exists in France and the two situations are not at all comparable; there's no such thing as ' the French Intifada', if only in the imagination of the author.


Since continents such as Europe are geographic entities before anything else, a country that's in Europe can not possibly become 'less-European' by having Muslim citizens (Albania and Bosnia are majority Muslim countries and European), unless we re-difine continents in terms of idealogy rather than geography; quite a confusing task since It's no longer possible to assign religions or idealogies to continents. That kind of definition might have been possible at the time of the crusades, but is a fantasy in today's world where all major religions are present in every continent; religiously homogenious continents do not exist. There are Christian Asians, Jewish Americans, Muslim Europeans, etc... which brings us to the conclusion that being European and Islamic are not mutually exclusive, just like being Jewish and American or being African and Christian are not; which in turn makes the statement "less-European and more Islamic" rather vague and superficial. In fact, continental boundaries no longer define religious ones and religions are not bound by geography.

I wish the author good luck for his liberal efforts at home, but obviously constructing international conspiracy theories is not one of his strong points given the confusion that's apparent in parts of this article.

Obviously you haven't read much about these riots, since I didn't coin this term - it is used to refer to the current French riots by varied people of varied political and religious origin.
Giving that the word "Intifada" is Arabic for uprising, I see no reason why it is strictly a Palestinian phenomenon. Unless you claim that Intifada has to include suicide bombings and car bombs. The first Palestinian intifada was quite similar in the way it went to the current French riotings - molotov cocktails, random violence, etc.


Indeed, Islam existed in Europe in one way or another for the past 1,300 years. But the form of Islam spreading today in Europe isn't European, but Middle-Eastern and Arabic. The form of Islam practiced by the Bosnians, the Albanians, and even the Turks, is quite different from how Arabs practice it - you yourself know that as a muslim (although they all practice Sunni Islam, they have gone through the European religious change. It's like claiming that Orthodox Christians in Syria are the same as Orthodox Christians in Russia or Ukraine).

The invasion of Middle-Eastern Islam into Europe's muslim by way of immigration on radicalization is the change I'm reffering to.


You have yet to point out confusions successfully enough. It's quite obvious your comments are emotional.
Good luck at your next post.

Which ones for example? And even if someone else refers to the riots in France as 'intifida', they are imagining things as well.

Not everyone speaks Arabic here; and for them, the term 'intifada' usually refers to the Palestinian uprising.

So? I wasn't talking about the 'forms' of Islam, I was just saying that Islam exists in Europe, there is a European Islam. Of course there are different sorts of Muslims in Europe, just like there are elsewhere.

The rioters in France aren't even Middle Eastern. I don't quite get what you're saying there, but I don't see how immigration problems caused mainly by economic reasons (that's why it's called 'immigration' and not 'invasion'), can be understood and treated properly by looking at it as an 'invasion by Middle Eastern Islam'. I don't think the N.African guy who was brought from the colonies into France after WW2 in order to the low jobs in a country in dire need of manual labor, and who was lodged in ghettos, even came close to thinking that he was going on a mission to invade Europe by Middle Eastern Islam when he was taking that boat across the Med.

Oh... that's what I thought I was doing the whole time, pointing out confusions in far-fetched conspiracy theories. The European social make-up is an interesting subject to talk about, but usually one has to get a bit more personal than that with me to get my emotions going!
And good luck to you too!

" the Muslim world spread from Arabia to the southern borders of France". No it didn't. The reason there is so many north africans in France is hundreds of years of French occupation of north africa, in petecular Algeria, tunisia, libia, which a lot of them where brought back as slaves, hence more people there speak better french than arabic or their native lauguage. statistics wise, algeria lost 1.2 million to gain its freedom. so France is not that innocent. Its like asking why is there so many africans in the USA.


" Add to that the 3 failed attempt by the Arab world, viewed by many as the heart of the muslim world, to destroy a small country even when it is fully united behind the task". Let's recount it. Divided Arab countries that reasently got its independence from EUROPE , VS. USA, France, UK + 4 million jewish imigrants with the most expensive and sofisticated artelary even by todays comparison. Israel was built on the destruction of another country, which by UN law, like that counts for anything, Is illegal, u can't distroy a county or create one its like Matter. so israel was never legal to begin with.


If you want my personal intake on the subject, USA and europe is not much different that Nazi's. The only Reason Israel was created was to reduce the percentage of jewish businessmen in europe and america becuase jewish owned businesses were dominating europe at the time. ring a bell , hilter ordered the murder of millions of jews becuase they would not financially support him. during world war 2 USA and most countries in europe sent jewish immirgants back to die. USA would not accept jewsih immigrants for 4 years. same goes for france and the rest of europe, so stop talking about france like u know what they are all about.


This hole thing about 9/11 and terorism stuff, is nothing more that a grand play. the factor of fear is very effective when u want to manipulate people. The fact is OIL is the only source of energy effective and cheap enough and the states is about to run out of it. every country is trying to secure its share in the mid east and that is my friend war is everywhere, thats why people like me fly 12,000km away to countries that dont want me, but they will be happy to take my land and my oil in the mid east.

its all about natural resources, examples

USA Vs japan : japan attacks becuase USA cuts oil supply to japan
Hilter Vs jews : jewish bussinesses refuse financial backup hiler invades countries with natural resources.
panama VS US : privatization of PAnama canal.
EGYPT Vs europe : privatization of sewis canal.
Iraq VS states : OIL OIL OIL OIL.
into the future: USA Vs syria: only strong american opposition in the mid east, goal total american ownership of the mid east.
into the future: USA Vs. china: Total economic donimation of china. states owes too much money in trade dificit.


by the way, I have yet to hear a confession from BIn Laden that he masterminded 9/11. they show u a picture on TV they play the Tapes but he never confesses. something to think about. actually CNN mistranslates everything he says.


only way peace is established is unifing palestine and israel into one country where people are treated the same regardless of their religious preference, I noticed that you are jewish so I'd like to hear ur intake on the subject.

I actually read an interesting article on this same topic by an author named Mark Silverberg... from http://www.marksilverberg.com

http://www.marksilverberg.com/Articles/2005/tfi.htm

A great read. I wish I had posters like this on my site.