The configuration and physical impact of the bomb detonated last Saturday in Stockholm is best left for forensic specialists to evaluate. For the rest of us, the most important aspect of the event is that it constitutes yet another warning for the unctuously self-righteous, effeminate and oblivious West that Islamist attacks are based on what we do, not who we are and how we think.
Taymour Abdul Wahab, the dead bomber, claimed his attack was motivated by Sweden’s contribution of five hundred troops to the U.S.-led Afghan war, the media’s printing of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad and other Western actions harming Muslims. In other words, he was willing to die because of what he saw as lethal Western attacks on his faith and brethren; the bomber’s e-mail to police told non-Muslim Swedes: “Now your children, daughters and sons will die like our brothers and sisters are dying.” Wahab did not claim that he acted because of his hatred for women in the Swedish workplace, local elections in Stockholm or the existence of democracy in Scandinavia. Since 9/11, hatred for Western actions in the Muslim world invariably has been identified by Islamist attackers in the United States, Australia, Britain, and other European countries as their principle motivation. Now popularly referred to as “home-growns," the great bulk of the evidence clearly shows these young Muslim males are motivated by the West’s policy toward Muslim peoples and nations.
In reality, the attackers have not been “home-grown” in the sense of being alienated or, to use the current social-(psuedo)science buzzword, “radicalized” by their immediate cultural and political surroundings. Most were educated, well-adjusted and functioning members of the Western state in which they lived. It was Western foreign policy vis-à-vis Muslim lands—what the Stockholm bomber called the “war being waged on Islam”—that nurtured their eagerness to defend Islam and Muslims by waging war at home. It was not the lifestyles of their fellow countrymen.
The endlessly repeated assertions by Western leaders and government-grant-hungry social scientists that the so-called home-grown attackers have been “radicalized” by Islamist scholars and preachers who are not orthodox Muslims, or by some disfigured, hijacked form of Islam, or by hatred for gender equality and liberty are nonsense elevated to common wisdom. They now have us fighting a “criminal” enemy that does not exist, rather than the growing, scripture-based and religiously motivated Islamist enemy that is on offer. We have ignored this reality and are near disaster because we take comfort in the reassuring but utterly false notion that the Islamists are limited in number, un-Islamic and basically criminals. As long as we continue to do so, the number of Muslims in the West—most, like the Stockholm bomber, with college degrees and jobs—willing to pick up arms or bombs will increase, and this proliferation will soon bring the war more fully and bloodily to Europe and the continental United States. And we will have only ourselves to blame. We have been too arrogant to listen to the enemy and understand his motivation; too self-blinded by political correctness to recognize the seriousness, religious legitimacy and breadth of his threat; and too effete to draft and then implement a strategic military-economic-political/diplomatic plan to decisively defeat him.
Finally, for terrorism “experts” who continue to insist that bin Laden and al-Qaeda are no longer influential players in the Islamists’ war, three items are worth noting. First, the Stockholm bomber named his son “Osama.” Second, an al-Qaeda-related website—Shumukh al-Islam—carried a statement by the al-Qaeda-backed Islamic State of Iraq’s War Minister Abu Sulieman al-Nasser identifying Wahab as the bomber, displaying Wahab’s picture, and announcing that the Stockholm attack is “only the beginning of a new era in our jihad . . . we will strike at the heart of Europe.” Third, both of his targets—a country supporting the U.S. in Afghanistan and those blaspheming the Prophet—have long been designated as key targets by Osama bin Laden.
At day’s end, sadly, Western governments are likely to ignore Wahab’s gift of a life ring, and instead will move quickly to waste inordinate amounts of taxpayer money on stoking up the useless de-radicalization programs advocated by social-science charlatans.






Comments
Cold comfort to know that the private funds of over-charged Georgetown students and National Interest readers now fund the incoherent ravings of a cretin once funded by my tax dollars at CIA.
Swedes as the deserving targets of would-be suicidal murderers? How is this being published here? Does this cretin know what the Swedes are actually doing in the north of Afghanistan? So much done to improve so much for the locals. Not a whole lot of kinetics going on there.
Surely no need to mention Sweden's exceptionally generous and kind welcome to rufegees from the war-torn region. So, how was it again that the failed killer was so well educated, so well situated with disposable income to fund his training and indoctrination abroad?
Odd, disturbing, and sick stuff: why is this cretin given a forum here to celebrate suicidal murder, urge for greater sensitivities to the murderous rage, and beat the drums for an apparently more vicious yet still undefined military campaign to defeat them? How was it that Scheuer never pulled this off while heading the team dedicated to the mission? Was it the the lack of language skills, the lack of military training, or the simple fact of never having set foot in the region? The mind reels--in disgust.
What a garbled argument. What exactly is Mr. Scheuer proposing? The bomber says he attacked because of what the Swiss are doing: Contributing troops to the Afghanistan campaign thereby killing Muslims. But then Mr. Scheuer argues that this somehow tells us that we should not . . . treat terrorism as a crime? That we should stop efforts to counter radical Islamic terrorist propaganda? Or is he proposing that the West should fall into bin Laden's trap and start treating this as a religious war by attacking all Muslims everywhere rather than attempting to separate the terrrosists from the peaceful Muslims -- no more attempt to divide and isolate the terrorists? Bomb them all everywhere? One could logically conclude that we should just leave Afghanistan and Iraq so we aren't killing Muslims anymore. That would remove the action that the terrorist cited as the reason for the Stockholm bombing. But I'm guessing that is not the manly plan that Mr. Scheuer has in mind. I say "manly" because of Scheuer's use of "effeminate" in criticizing current policies. Apparently,
in Mr. Sheuer's world one has to be manly to counter the terrorists. If
so, Mr. Scheuer has more in common with the fundamentalist and
misogynistic Muslim terrorists than he does with most Westerners. So, Mr. Sheuer, what manly "strategic military-economic-political/diplomatic plan" do you propose?