They call themselves conservatives, but they “blame America” for terrorism against our people.
The title of the article was: “Why Did The Saudis Kill U.S. Sailors While Three Others Filmed It?.” The author, Doug Bandow, uses the Pensacola terrorist’s manifesto to justify his (the author’s) “America is bad” slant on terrorism in general. By the second paragraph he is blaming President Trump: “Yet afterward President Donald Trump spent more time justifying the Saudi royals than supporting the victims’ families.”
The writer goes on to say: “Al-Shamrani’s complaint is against U.S. foreign policy, which today so often means bombing, invading, and occupying other nations and killing their peoples,” I’m sorry, but this Muslim ingrate didn’t attack the Department of State. He killed unarmed American service members. Was killing unarmed people, in cold blood, the only avenue available to this POS Saudi to express his grievances against our foreign policies? How was he or HIS people harmed? He accepted a flight program slot in America, so he could bomb…wait for it…fellow Muslims!
There were many reasons the terrorist act against unarmed pilot trainees took place, and blaming American foreign policies is like blaming the rain for a car accident. Bandow’s simplistic perspective accomplishes nothing but obscuring the real issues, including Military command decisions to disarm our service members. Failure to screen these Saudi students was closer to the front end of the problem.
Bandow reaches back in time to the attempted bombing of New York Times Square by Pakistani Faisal Shahzad. Quoting a New York PD Intelligence Officer, Ajani Marwat, Bandow seeks validation for his “Blame America” thesis: “It’s simple. It’s American policies in his country. That’s it. Americans are so closed-minded. They have no idea what’s going on in the rest of the world. And he did know. Every time you turn on al-Jazeera, they show our people being killed.”
Americans are just close-minded, unlike Muslims who openly embrace social, political and religious doctrines of other nations. Bandow doesn’t bother to mention that al-Jazeera is infamous for doctoring videos, and using photos of terrorist atrocities to pin on the American military for recruitment purposes. Pointing out al-Jazeera’s FAKE NEWS would crush his narrative.
To bring up an inconvenient point, American civilians are often the target of attacks (9/11, Boston Marathon bombing,etc). The Pakistani bumbling wannabe terrorist justified targeting civilians with this quote included in Bandow’s article: “in a democracy it was civilians who select the government.” When asked about children, Shazad replied: “Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don’t see children, they don’t see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It’s a war, and in war, they kill people. They’re killing all Muslims.” Bandow failed to address the caveat that terrorists often use civilians for cover, hoping to escape harm. So, Mr. Bandow, who is responsible for many or most of these civilian casualties?
Perhaps this writer might have paused for a moment and reflected on the number of women and children raped and murdered by “fellow” Muslims. Should we let these terrorist escape and kill more of their own? Has Mr. Bandow ever served in a capacity when these decisions had to be made, or is he a keyboard warrior with 20/20 hindsight?
Sorry. No data so far.
Wait! There’s more.
My fellow Marines will love Bandow’s next justification for terrorism. This time, President Reagan is in his sights: “Consider the 1983 bombings of its embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon. The Reagan administration foolishly intervened in a multi-sided civil war to back the “national” government, which ruled little more than Beirut. After Washington launched air and naval attacks on opposing forces, Lebanese Muslims saw aggression, not liberty, and responded accordingly.” Mr. Bandow, I suggest you avoid USMC installations or recruiting stations if you’re going to spout that drivel.
This so-called conservative writer goes on to justify the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 9/11, and Bin Laden’s hatred for America. He winds his story down with this: “Washington cannot escape the malign if unintended consequences of its actions. The U.S. regularly meddles in other nations’ affairs. Worse, it routinely invades, bombs, occupies, drones, and sanctions other countries. When outraged foreigners strike back, innocent Americans become targets.”
Bandow is an old-guard Cato Institute policy wonk who never seemed to understand that it isn’t as simple as “us and them.” To be a strong nation we have to be decisive, and, at times, aggressive when our interests are at stake. We are the dominant economic and military force on the planet. If we don’t do everything we can to stay there, we will soon be knocked off that perch by China or Russia. If we bow (sound familiar?) to those who would do us harm in any way, we will suffer greater loss.
I don’t know what this writer was doing in the pre-Reagan, Carter years, but the Middle East had us by the throat with their oil cartel. Our economy was reeling from double-digit inflation, and there was a real fear that we would not be able to maintain the petroleum reserve needed for our military. We were still deep in the nuclear arms Cold War with Russia staring us down. Carter was weak (like Obama) and we lost Iran and an oil option when the Shah was deposed. It was a scary, bleak time with children hiding under their desks during nuclear attack drills.
President Reagan made certain we regained our footing and put the fear of the American God in the hearts and minds of Middle East leaders–and others. You might note that 9/11 (funded by Saudi Arabia) happened when they realized we were no longer totally dependent on them for petroleum. The 9/11 attack took a terrible toll on our economy…I guess Bandow would blame us for that too. I call it Saudi economic payback.
This wasn’t an “explanation” of terrorism–it was a justification.
I wouldn’t take issue with Mr. Bandow’s article if he had at least attempted to cover more than one side of the terrorism issue. He may believe he merely offered an explanation, not a justification for terrorist acts against Americans, but an explanation covers more than one side of the equation, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, he ended up sounding like the typical left-over establishment policy wonk who has been shuffled off to a basement somewhere and ignored. It just came across as a bitter, “they should have listened to ME!” complaint. It actually sounded kind of familiar, like the anti-Trump impeachment testimony from other government policy wonks who had been pushed aside.
I doubt Mr. Carlson has time to review articles, but I do expect more from any publishing organization he might put his name on. I just wonder if he agrees with Bandow’s anti-American drivel? Do you, Tucker?
I think you’d enjoy visiting our two sister sites where you’ll find fresh articles daily:
Also check these out:
David Brockett is a Vietnam Veteran and former Marine aviator. He writes fiction and historical fiction, as well as articles on politics, religion, gun-rights, preparedness, and current events.
Your Daily Briefing:
Fight Online Censorship!
Get the news Google and Facebook don't want you to see: Sign up for DC Dirty Laundry's daily briefing and do your own thinking!